Separating Reporting From Opinion in a Column

A column is opinion by definition. But very few columns are opinion from start to finish. Most contain a good deal of reporting: what a policy says, what happened at a hearing, what a set of figures shows. The reader’s trust in the opinion depends heavily on their trust in the reporting, and that trust depends on being able to tell the two apart.

This note is about drawing that line clearly on the page. It is not an argument for neutrality in columns; a column without a view has failed at its job. It is an argument for letting readers see which sentences are the facts the writer is working from and which are the writer’s judgement about them.

Two kinds of sentence

Read any column closely and its sentences sort into two groups. Some can be checked: “The bill passed its second reading on Tuesday.” “The report covers the years 2019 to 2024.” “The minister said the scheme would be reviewed.” Others are judgements: “The bill is a mistake.” “The report is too narrow to support its conclusions.” “The minister’s promise is unlikely to be kept.”

Both kinds belong in a column. Trouble begins when they blur, and a judgement is phrased as though it were a checkable fact, or a contested fact is presented as settled. “The failed scheme” is a judgement wearing the clothes of a description. “The scheme, which in my view has failed” is the same judgement, honestly dressed.

A useful exercise, when revising, is to mark each sentence of a draft as either a fact or a judgement. Where you cannot decide, the sentence probably needs rewriting so that its status is plain.

State the facts fairly before judging them

When a column depends on a set of facts, establish them first and establish them fairly. A reader who disagrees with your conclusion should still be able to read your account of the facts and find it accurate. If they cannot, they will reject the argument before reaching it, and with some justice.

Fair statement means including the facts that complicate your case, not only those that support it. It means describing positions you oppose in terms their holders would accept. And it means attributing every fact that is not common knowledge, so the reader can check it; our note on sourcing and attribution covers how. A column that is scrupulous about its facts earns the licence to be forceful about its opinions.

Signal the shift

Readers should be able to see when a column moves from reporting into argument. The signals are simple, and they cost very little:

• First-person markers. “I think”, “in my view”, “I would argue”. Overused, they become a tic; used at the turning points, they mark the line clearly.
• Evaluative verbs and adverbs placed in the open. “This is a mistake because…” is honest. A mistake smuggled into an adjective is not.
• Structure. A column that sets out the facts in its first section and argues in the next makes the division visible in its shape. Headings help: “What the bill does” and “Why it should be amended” tell the reader exactly what each section offers.

The aim is not to hedge every opinion. It is to let the opinion be stated with full force, in the place where the reader expects it.

Watch for words that carry a verdict

Much of the blurring between reporting and opinion happens at the level of single words. Some to watch:

• Loaded labels. Terms that one side of a debate uses for the other. Where a neutral term exists, use it in your reporting and save the charged term, if you want it, for the sentences where you are arguing.
• Intensifiers. “Massive”, “shocking”, “unprecedented”. If the figure is large, give the figure; let the reader be shocked.
• Verbs of attribution. “Claimed” and “admitted” pass judgement on a statement before the reader has weighed it. “Said” does not.
• Presuppositions. “Why has the council ignored residents?” assumes that it has. Establish the fact first; then ask the question.

None of these words is forbidden. A columnist may well conclude that something is shocking. The point is to arrive at that word through the argument, not to start from it.

Label the work on the page

Columnists on VeriTaus can divide their columns into sections of their own choosing (the features page describes how), and those sections are a natural place to label kinds of work. A writer who publishes both reported pieces and opinion might keep them in separate sections, such as “Reports” and “Comment”, so that a reader arriving at a story knows from its section which kind of piece it is. Topics, which gather stories across the platform, describe subject; sections can describe form.

The headline can do similar work. A headline that states the column’s position, “The city should end parking minimums”, signals opinion at once; a headline that states a fact, “Council votes to review parking rules”, promises reporting. Our note on headlines without clickbait returns to this point.

Disclose what the reader would want to know

The last boundary is between the writer’s opinion and the writer’s interests. If you have a stake in the subject, whether a job, a relationship, a membership, a financial interest or a past role, say so near the top of the column. Readers do not expect columnists to have no connections to what they write about; they expect to be told about the connections that might shape the argument.

A short sentence is usually enough: “I served on the committee that drafted the original scheme.” It does not weaken the column. It lets the reader weigh the argument with the full picture, which is all a reader of a journal of record asks. Our guidelines put it more briefly: write as yourself, and show your sources.