Notes from Rae Simpson on Women Action and Media 2009 workshop

  Catherine Orenstein (Catie), Founder, The Op-Ed Project, journalist, author
  Laura Mazer, Managing editor of Counterpoint Books, editorial advisor for the Op-Ed Project

9 out of 10 op-ed submissions to the Washington Post are from men
About 85% of op-eds nationally are by men
About 75% syndicated columnists are male

Across many spectra, the thought leadership is predominantly male, white, privileged. Progressive Media Project targeted her in the 1990s, taught her the basics of writing op-eds in about two hours, and she saw a powerful difference in audiences she could reach. She decided to take this idea and use it to target and train women, influence the supply side, created The OpEd Project, which has a group of mentor editors to help those who submit pieces. She is looking to double the number of women submitting from around 15% to 30%, hoping to hit a tipping point. Part of her motive is that women tell stories very differently. (She was a student of folklore.) Her training process:

Question 1: What is credibility, and how do you establish it? Credibility is accountability to knowledge. Say what you know and why you know it. Saying one is an expert is very gendered; women have trouble saying they are experts.

Question 2: How do you build an evidence-based, value-driven argument? Concrete building blocks that people will find credible; it depends on the audience. Value-driven: What are you adding to the conversation?

Question 3: What is the difference between being right and being effective? Qualities to make you more effective: empathy and respect. Are you trying to begin a conversation? She wrote an op-ed for the New York Times that alienated 4 out of 5 of the readers she was trying to reach, on Sex and the City.

Question 4: What's the bigger picture? No matter how local, specific your concerns are, they tie to a bigger context.

Question 5: Do you understand your knowledge and experience in terms of its value to other people? Americans are trained to think in terms of their interests; it's more powerful to think, what are other people's interests in me? Let your value to other people be a driving context in what you write about. What are you walking around knowing that would be almost unethical not to share?

Laura: Op-Ed stands for "opposite the editorial."

Needed for an op-ed:

• Expertise (not necessarily the most expertise in the world, just an informed perspective)
• A timely argument: What is going on now that you can anchor the piece to, or what can you find? A heart surgeon who wanted to talk about the neglect of women's heart disease tied it to Valentine's Day.
• A piece: word counts are now about 600 for national newspapers, or 500 for regional papers, more for on-line space. Include acknowledgement of the other side's argument.
• A pitch: Why now (unless obvious)? So what? Why me? And the idea in a few lines. Piece attached below. Bio is below that (include expertise as it relates to this topic). OK to say, if I don't hear from you by x date, I'll assume it's a pass.

The OpEd Project web site has all of this on line: tips, structure, ideas, sample ledes, contact information, etc.-open source. Does public trainings. Four regularly NY, DC, SF, LA regularly. $300/day. Gives scholarships to 40%, asks them to write an op-ed. Anyone who comes gets matched with a mentor editor.