In praise of opinion writing
BY JOHN HOOD, JAN 31, 2019, news & observer

I have written a syndicated column on politics and public policy for
North Carolina newspapers since 1986. Have I influenced how readers
think about the issues I discuss? I certainly hope so, at least to
some extent.

But there are plenty of smart people, scholars of public opinion and
political behavior, who question whether editorials, columns, and
op-eds matter. Some argue that political attitudes are so deeply felt,
so bound up with partisan affiliation and personal experience, that
they rarely change in response to what people read. This is especially
true, the argument goes, for the political insiders who wield a
disproportionate influence on policy outcomes.

Other skeptics argue something like the reverse: that what may look
like fixed ideological attitudes are nothing more than fleeting
symbols of group affinity, blind allegiance to a charismatic leader,
or how poll questions are worded. To the extent opinion writing
changes minds, it rarely sticks. It doesn’t transform thoughts or
actions in the long run, they contend.

As with most questions of human behavior, the evidence here is mixed.
Partisan preference (as distinct from party membership) is a powerful
force that limits how much people are willing to stray from their
team’s consensus. Lots of people do “follow the crowd” when it comes
to political attitudes, conforming their views on issues beyond their
personal experience to those of their leaders or groups.

But there is also good evidence for the proposition that ideas matter
— that powerful messages conveyed in compelling ways can change the
course of political debates, movements, and elections. For example,
the bitter conflicts of the 20th century between rival totalitarian
ideologies are difficult to explain without recourse to ideas.
Millions of people were willing to fight and die for causes that
originated in the written word of persuasive madmen such as Marx,
Lenin, Mussolini, and Hitler.

It works for benign ideas, too, and for philosophical conflicts with
less at stake. A fascinating study published last year in the
Quarterly Journal of Political Science used online surveys to gauge
the political views of respondents before and after they read op-eds
published in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, USA Today,
and Newsweek. In samples of both general readers and political
“elites,” those who read an op-ed became more favorably disposed to
its thesis than those who did not, although the effect was weaker for
political insiders (as might be expected).

Using reasonable estimates of the number of readers exposed to these
op-eds in the “real world,” rather than within the confines of the
study, the authors calculated the cost-per-mind-changed ranged from 50
cents to three dollars — which compares favorably with other means of
political communication such as buying ads or staging events.

Even if the skeptics are right to cast doubt on the persuasion effect,
opinion pieces can serve other rhetorical goals. If the writer is a
trusted political or intellectual leader, readers may shift their
views based on the byline rather than the content. A strongly argued
op-ed may also convince political actors who disagree with the writer
that they might lose the debate, pushing them towards compromise.

I have loved newspapers ever since I started reading them in the
1970s. I believe in their continued relevance as a critical source of
news, analysis, and commentary, whether readers encounter them in
print or online. I have considered it a privilege to write a regular
column for North Carolina papers, and to contribute occasionally to
national ones. And I consider it an opportunity not just to express
myself but to inform, challenge, provoke, and, yes, persuade readers
to see things as I do.

It’s a two-way street, of course. While my core philosophy has
remained the same for more than three decades, my views have shifted
on some issues in response to writing, responding to critics, and
reading editorial content from other writers.

Today, I had a more limited goal: to persuade you to keep reading
editorial pages and opinion sections. Did I succeed?

John Hood (@JohnHoodNC) is chairman of the John Locke Foundation.

https://www.newsobserver.com/opinion...225349140.html

wrote
In praise of opinion writing
BY JOHN HOOD, JAN 31, 2019, news & observer

I have written a syndicated column on politics and public
policy for North Carolina newspapers since 1986. Have
I influenced how readers think about the issues I discuss?
I certainly hope so, at least to some extent.

But there are plenty of smart people, scholars of public opinion
and political behavior, who question whether editorials, columns,
and op-eds matter. Some argue that political attitudes are so deeply
felt, so bound up with partisan affiliation and personal experience,
that they rarely change in response to what people read.

What they read in editorials, columns, and op-eds, anyway.

This is especially true, the argument goes, for the political insiders
who wield a disproportionate influence on policy outcomes.

Other skeptics argue something like the reverse: that what may
look like fixed ideological attitudes are nothing more than fleeting
symbols of group affinity, blind allegiance to a charismatic leader,
or how poll questions are worded. To the extent opinion writing
changes minds, it rarely sticks. It doesn't transform thoughts or
actions in the long run, they contend.

As with most questions of human behavior, the evidence here is mixed.
Partisan preference (as distinct from party membership) is a powerful
force that limits how much people are willing to stray from their
team's consensus. Lots of people do "follow the crowd" when it
comes to political attitudes, conforming their views on issues beyond
their personal experience to those of their leaders or groups.

More that most don't care enough about politics to even consider
the issues most of the time and don't change their basic outlook
on most political issues, tho clearly there is also a well known
tendency to move away from the more leftist and radical outlook
that is so common in the young to less radical stuff as they age.

But there is also good evidence for the proposition that ideas matter
- that powerful messages conveyed in compelling ways can change
the course of political debates, movements, and elections. For example,

But that's much more about attitudes changing due
to other factors than editorials, columns, and op-eds

the bitter conflicts of the 20th century between rival
totalitarian ideologies are difficult to explain without
recourse to ideas. Millions of people were willing to fight
and die for causes that originated in the written word of
persuasive madmen such as Marx, Lenin, Mussolini, and Hitler.

Yes, but again, that isnt due to editorials, columns, and op-eds

No one took much notice of Marx and Lenin until the circumstances in
russia allowed those who were interested in that stuff got to rule the
roost.

Same with Hitler. It wasn't Mein Kampf that got people to
change their minds, it was the parlous state of Germany
that saw enough choose to take the risk with Hitler.

Same with Trump today, the parlous state of US politics in that
case saw enough choose to take the chance and see if he could
do any better. Nothing to do with any editorials, columns, and
op-eds or even the more gung ho stuff like Breitbart either.

It works for benign ideas, too, and for philosophical conflicts
with less at stake. A fascinating study published last year in the
Quarterly Journal of Political Science used online surveys to gauge
the political views of respondents before and after they read op-eds
published in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, USA Today,
and Newsweek. In samples of both general readers and political
"elites," those who read an op-ed became more favorably disposed
to its thesis than those who did not, although the effect was weaker
for political insiders (as might be expected).

Using reasonable estimates of the number of readers exposed
to these op-eds in the "real world," rather than within the
confines of the study, the authors calculated the cost-per-
mind-changed ranged from 50 cents to three dollars

That's completely bogus given that few ever change
their mind based on an editorial or op ed piece.

- which compares favorably with other means of political
communication such as buying ads or staging events.

Bull**** it does. Those don't change minds either.

Even if the skeptics are right to cast doubt on the persuasion
effect, opinion pieces can serve other rhetorical goals. If the
writer is a trusted political or intellectual leader, readers may
shift their views based on the byline rather than the content.

Don't believe that happens much either.

A strongly argued op-ed may also convince political
actors who disagree with the writer that they might
lose the debate, pushing them towards compromise.

Have fun listing any examples of that.

I have loved newspapers ever since I started reading them in
the 1970s. I believe in their continued relevance as a critical
source of news, analysis, and commentary, whether readers
encounter them in print or online. I have considered it a
privilege to write a regular column for North Carolina papers,

Hardly what you might call mainstream media.

and to contribute occasionally to national ones. And I consider it
an opportunity not just to express myself but to inform, challenge,
provoke, and, yes, persuade readers to see things as I do.

Bet you havent actually done that at all.

It's a two-way street, of course. While my core philosophy has
remained the same for more than three decades, my views have
shifted on some issues in response to writing, responding to
critics, and reading editorial content from other writers.

Everyone's views change over time.

Today, I had a more limited goal: to persuade you to keep
reading editorial pages and opinion sections. Did I succeed?

Nope, I don't read **** like that.

John Hood (@JohnHoodNC) is chairman of the John Locke Foundation.

https://www.newsobserver.com/opinion...225349140.html