Examples of Opinion Articles

Opinion Article

A opinion piece it is a journalistic text argumentative that explores a topic of interest to public opinion, based on the author's personal considerations.

It is a personal text and, unlike an editorial, it is always signed by its author, who uses arguments and evaluations to support his opinion on a certain topic.

These articles seek to awaken in their readers a critical feeling about the subject, highlighting aspects and considerations to limit the debate to their point of view. For this they usually use narrations, comparisons and even some degree of poetic writing.

Opinion articles tend to reinforce the editorial line of the medium in which they are published. They constitute one of the most read sections of a journalistic publication since it is usually called to personalities from the political, cultural or media world to share their point of view and opinion.

Structure of the opinion piece

The traditional structure of an opinion piece includes:

Examples of opinion pieces

1. "The fringes of the Civil War continue to count" by José Andrés Rojo.

Posted in the diary The country of Spain, on November 21, 2016.

The desire to know what happened brings together people of very different ideologies

The world will not change if at this point we find out that there were a few savvy from the Franco side who crossed the Manzanares River for a few days before the date that historians have so far considered good, and that even reached Argüelles, where there were skirmishes with the forces Republicans. What has been explained, what is more or less fixed by the scholars of the Civil War, is that the troops of the rebel military only They managed to cross the river after having conquered the Casa de Campo, and that they only did so on November 15, 1936, a few months after the infamous coup of July. It didn't do them much good. Madrid managed to resist, and the war dragged on.

But it turns out that there are a few papers that show that there was a previous assault, as this newspaper told yesterday in its Culture pages. An assault that did not go very far and that did not manage to establish a solid position, as happened later when Franco's forces arrived at the University City and remained there until the end of the war. Is this relevant and will it change the story about the battle of Madrid? Surely not, unless other evidence of greater weight appears, but what really matters is the fact to go back to the documents, to continue tirelessly pulling on the fringes, to continue exploring. The past is always a vast unknown territory, and many treat it as one who plays a complex score by ear.

What these papers surely show is that, in peace as well as in war, the truth: because it is not convenient, because it complicates things, because it gives a different image from the one we want to project. It did not suit the Republicans to let it be known that the Francoists had come so far so far. soon, very shortly after starting that offensive on the capital that they intended to be the final one. And the Francoists were annoyed that (those ruffles) had forced them to withdraw. It was a blaze, common in a war; as it went off, no one paid any greater interest.

Except for those few who keep digging, and who keep asking, and who tirelessly pursue all the clues to that the story of what happened better and better fit what really happened in those fateful (and chaotic) days. Many of these indefatigable curious are part of the Study Group of the Madrid Front (Gefrema).

It is worth noting that what matters in this group is the desire to know what happened, and to investigate and delve into everything that remains to be discovered and explained. Some come from families that were in the war with the rebels and others are descendants of the defenders of the Republic or of those who went mad to make the revolution. Knowing the sisters beyond their respective ideologies and, well, it's a smart way to go back to the past. Not to settle pending accounts: to know him better.

1. "The weight of uncertainties" scored by Gustavo Roosen.

Posted in the diary The National of Venezuela, on November 20, 2016.

Colombia and the plebiscite on the peace agreement, England and the decision to leave the European Union, the United States and the presidential election are just three cases in which the surprise has overcome the presumption, but they are also, and very especially, three demonstrations of the distance between political logic and the people, between the drawing of the polls and the picture of the real and deep perceptions and aspirations of the society. The result of this gap, fueled by people's forgetfulness or ignorance, is none other than the emergence of mistrust, the abandonment of citizen responsibilities in political action and the flourishing of very varied forms of anarchy and demagoguery.

Few things are possibly more dangerous to freedom and democracy than the loss of confidence in the politicians, people's feeling of not being understood or even misled by those who aspire to represent them or direct it. In Venezuela, in particular, some feel that the proposals do not respond to their aspirations as a country; others, that attention has been focused on the political game to the detriment of the true interests of the population. In any case, doubts grow more than certainties.

As a result of the first agreements between the government and the representatives of the opposition organized in the Mesa de la Unidad, these sentiments have gained unexpected strength. Despite the attempt to explain the strategy and intentions, it is perceived that the political representation of the opposition does not express with the force that it should the gravity of the situation and the urgency of the solutions; that it does not achieve the political objectives that it proposes and proposes; that declares deadlines and goals that it cannot sustain; that wastes its political capital and popular support; that you are not doing what you should to keep up your enthusiasm; that there is a discourse towards the interior of the dialogue tables and another for the street; that explanations about tone and strategy don't sound convincing enough. People understand negotiating, but want to see progress. People expect the points on the table to be resolved, not because they think they are unique, but because they perceive them as immediate, as emergency.

The result of this loss of confidence begins to accelerate a process in which the wrinkle of hope can no longer be drawn. Whoever set limits for his plan B now feels that he cannot keep putting it off. Hence the increase in emigration. Hence, for example, the growing number of Venezuelan doctors taking tests in Chile to work in the public network in that country. Last year there were 338, this year there are already 847. And like these doctors, thousands of other professionals and entrepreneurs who cancel their dream of opportunities in the country to seek them abroad. The bewilderment does not allow many to run the wrinkle further. There comes a time when the real reasons, those of the economy and the personal ones, do not give for more. Prolonging the situation exhausts people's hope. And against that, it is not enough to remember the slogan that he who gets tired loses.

The exercise of politics has today more than ever the imperative of sharpening the perception of people, their motivations, their aspirations, about what is most immediate and visible but especially about the profound, what is said and what is kept silent, what is declared in public and what is held in private, what is discovered in front of others and what is kept in the internal jurisdiction. Correctly interpret people, understand their aspirations, their motivations, their fears, their expectations is, therefore, the only way to reach society and to be understood by her. Luis Ugalde has said it: "Democrats need to inform and listen to the people so that the pains and hopes of the population are at the head and at the heart of the negotiations." If what is intended is to nurture trust and hope, that good communication is, without a doubt, an obligatory condition.