I agree with you. I recall that someone said that the first rule of opinion writing is: Have a point and make it. Some Googling suggests that it was Jacques Barzun:
I routinely find myself annoyed when I'm halfway through a long article and still don't know what the writer is trying to say. A very good writer can surely have a point and make it without the crutch of beginning with an explicit question and answer, but I think that a great deal of writing would be improved by that discipline.
Consider the position of Ross Douthat. His pieces cannot be that explicit: if he wrote them that way, it would probably turn off many readers of the New York Times. He has to advance his position softly and subtly--maybe even implicitly. But that is the point.
I get what you're saying, but if a well-reasoned and civil opinion piece (I'm not familiar with Douthat, so I don't know if that's his style) turns people off, they're generally not an audience worth talking to in the first place.
In an opinion piece? Sure- it would likely help both the reader and the author. That said, I think rather than looking to make opinion pieces more useful, maybe we should be trying to make opinion pieces more scarce. I'd rather see more discussion pieces where an author steelmans two sides of an issue in order to elicit discussion. Maybe from there, still staying out of the Opinion Zone, have something like "I prefer this approach" rather than a "This is good and this is not" sort of opinion. Once you've done that, the battle lines are drawn. People are attacking and defending, rather than clarifying and discussing.
Along those lines, I've purchased Julia Galef's The Scout Mindset, but unfortunately it's at about #4 in the reading queue.
Please explain why you’re recapitulating Betteridges Law of Headlines as if it’s a virtue. That’s the most egregious cliche in media and you’re criticizing others saying we need more of it.
I can’t tell if this is a troll or if you genuinely believe more of that would help
You didn’t need to say it. A piece is going it have a slant. It’s most often pretty clear what that is unless the person is going out of their way to be “straussian” as the counterpriests like to say these days.
> I would change my mind if someone can show me examples for which the attempt to supply a specific question would make the piece less clear or less persuasive.
Have you considered that this sort of rigid formatting is A. Never going to be adopted en masse B. That titles aren’t a good vehicle for rigor and making them so is actually self defeating to the purpose of persuasion of a larger audience which needs to actually visit the article in the first place C. Subtitles are routinely used for exactly the purpose you’re claiming as novel (and to limited effect)? D. Betteridges law may be about negating the prompt, but it doesn’t mean the principle doesn’t hold in the opposite direction that that type of titling is in poor taste in either direction?
But yeah. Just dismiss the point I made saying it’s “of no use whatsoever” because you’re averse to the truth behind rhetoric
This is an interesting point I hadn’t considered. I suspect that pieces addressing complex subjects, such as Robin Hanson’s piece could become less accessible when phrased as intricate questions. That said, it is already not very accessible given the language and terminology he uses in the piece and giving a simplified version of your suggested question above (Should Elites be less inclined to top-down solutions?) would probably make it more clear.
I agree with you. I recall that someone said that the first rule of opinion writing is: Have a point and make it. Some Googling suggests that it was Jacques Barzun:
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/499214-first-principle-have-a-point-and-make-it-by-means
I routinely find myself annoyed when I'm halfway through a long article and still don't know what the writer is trying to say. A very good writer can surely have a point and make it without the crutch of beginning with an explicit question and answer, but I think that a great deal of writing would be improved by that discipline.
Consider the position of Ross Douthat. His pieces cannot be that explicit: if he wrote them that way, it would probably turn off many readers of the New York Times. He has to advance his position softly and subtly--maybe even implicitly. But that is the point.
I get what you're saying, but if a well-reasoned and civil opinion piece (I'm not familiar with Douthat, so I don't know if that's his style) turns people off, they're generally not an audience worth talking to in the first place.
He is the token socially conservative, devout Roman Catholic Republican at the New York Times... His audience is what it is.
In an opinion piece? Sure- it would likely help both the reader and the author. That said, I think rather than looking to make opinion pieces more useful, maybe we should be trying to make opinion pieces more scarce. I'd rather see more discussion pieces where an author steelmans two sides of an issue in order to elicit discussion. Maybe from there, still staying out of the Opinion Zone, have something like "I prefer this approach" rather than a "This is good and this is not" sort of opinion. Once you've done that, the battle lines are drawn. People are attacking and defending, rather than clarifying and discussing.
Along those lines, I've purchased Julia Galef's The Scout Mindset, but unfortunately it's at about #4 in the reading queue.
Please explain why you’re recapitulating Betteridges Law of Headlines as if it’s a virtue. That’s the most egregious cliche in media and you’re criticizing others saying we need more of it.
I can’t tell if this is a troll or if you genuinely believe more of that would help
This comment is of no use whatsoever. Nowhere did I say that the answer has to be "no," which is Betteridges' Law.
You didn’t need to say it. A piece is going it have a slant. It’s most often pretty clear what that is unless the person is going out of their way to be “straussian” as the counterpriests like to say these days.
> I would change my mind if someone can show me examples for which the attempt to supply a specific question would make the piece less clear or less persuasive.
Have you considered that this sort of rigid formatting is A. Never going to be adopted en masse B. That titles aren’t a good vehicle for rigor and making them so is actually self defeating to the purpose of persuasion of a larger audience which needs to actually visit the article in the first place C. Subtitles are routinely used for exactly the purpose you’re claiming as novel (and to limited effect)? D. Betteridges law may be about negating the prompt, but it doesn’t mean the principle doesn’t hold in the opposite direction that that type of titling is in poor taste in either direction?
But yeah. Just dismiss the point I made saying it’s “of no use whatsoever” because you’re averse to the truth behind rhetoric
This is an interesting point I hadn’t considered. I suspect that pieces addressing complex subjects, such as Robin Hanson’s piece could become less accessible when phrased as intricate questions. That said, it is already not very accessible given the language and terminology he uses in the piece and giving a simplified version of your suggested question above (Should Elites be less inclined to top-down solutions?) would probably make it more clear.