Institute for Policy Research guide to writing about contentious issues
Tone
The tone with which an article is written makes a big difference to how it is received by the reader.
Getting the tone wrong can put readers off and result in:


Articles that are so objective that they are just bare facts, with no hint given as to why a
particular person, policy, piece of research or organisation is even featured.
Articles that are so subjective in tone that they hit the reader over the head with their ‘take’
on things. They are heavy on value judgements, but light on evidence.
There should be enough objective material – hard facts about what the person or organisation said
or did, quotes from the target person or from critics to enable readers to make their own reasoned
judgement.
Focus on facts
Try to be as factual as possible. Avoid rhetoric or personal comment and stay away from speculation,
innuendo or defamation and libel. If comment is provided please be fair. Strike a balance. If you are
writing about someone, you want the article to contain factual information about the person not
your views on that particular person.
Avoid generalisations and unsubstantiated sweeping statements.
If you are making accusations against a person or organisation, you must support it with as much
primary material as possible. Just because someone else has said it is true, does not mean it is true.
Make sure your sources are up to date, and relate to present day situation or indicate that they are
historical.
Avoid sarcasm, ranting, and anger
Present a reasoned argument by showing the evidence, which we hope will invite the reader to form
the inevitable conclusion. Sarcasm, ranting, and anger are counter-productive because they alienate
people and make them think that your information is not strong enough to speak for itself.
Another factor is that sarcasm often ‘translates’ poorly on the web: if you make a statement such as
“David Cameron is well known for his ‘prudence’ in managing the economy,” meaning that he has
made a hash of it, a surprising number of readers will take your words at face value and think that
you believe Cameron to be a great money manager.
We explicitly warn against abusive language or language that is in any way racist, sexist or obscene
or could be construed as such. There should not be any need to call anyone names, and it’s often
counter-productive. The point is to cite facts, words or actions and let the reader make his own
judgement.
In summary, let the facts speak for themselves - and use temperate language. Don't tell the readers
what to think.
Provide analysis
The string of bare facts laid out might not always be enough (“Joe Bloggs is a member of the
Something Council and sits on the board of directors at Otherthing Co”). The reader needs more of
an explanation on why a combination of different jobs or functions is of interest or raises questions.
While providing analyses, always be careful not to sound biased, don't let prejudice creep in. Do not
use suggestive language, or imply that there is a connection between organisations, or a relation
between key-people just because the circumstances seem to point in that direction.
The key here is common sense: 'say what you can say' - backed up by facts.
There is, however, a risk in letting the facts speak for themselves entirely. One can also be suggestive
by not adding enough analysis. You do need to explain why you are citing the facts and what they
tell you.
Quote accurately
Take care to quote people or printed material accurately, and to represent their views correctly.
Misquotations can be used as an excuse to sue.
Take care not to quote people or printed material out of context, thereby changing the meaning.
If you repeat something libelous you can be held responsible for it. This includes repeating direct
quotes from someone who is making allegations about someone else. It is no excuse
in law to argue that it was published, for example, in The Guardian first - or that someone else said it
first.
Any unflattering statement must be backed by evidence. Provide references to sources and ensure
that you are using sources correctly, i.e. accurately representing what they say. Also if the person,
organisation or company has denied the accusation in material you are quoting from (or later in a
letter of clarification or a correction note), this should be reflected in the article you write.
Don’t assume too much knowledge
If we assume too much knowledge on the part of our readers, we are at risk of creating information
that only insiders can understand. We have to assume that our readers know little or nothing about
our article topic. They need to be introduced to it and led through the content step-by-step.
It’s probably not going to be practical to go into the background of every person and organisation
that you mention. But often it’s helpful to give a brief explanation of the relevance of people or
organisations that you mention. If you are publishing for the web, you can also provide external links
to more information.
For example, if you are talking about a person or company, give a brief clue as to why it is important
to mention this person or company in particular. "" At this stage it should be noted that all examples
given in this tutorial are entirely fictional""
This is not helpful:
Bloggs PR Company claims to represent ‘the ethical side of PR’ but at the same time Bloggs has done
work for Smith Industries.
This assumes that everyone knows what Smith Industries does and agrees that it is bad.
This is more helpful:
Bloggs PR Company claims to represent ‘the ethical side of PR’ but at the same time Bloggs has done
work for Smith Industries. This aluminium mining company has come under attack for polluting large
stretches of the Amazon river in Brazil. Bloggs PR conducted a major PR campaign that glossed over
Smith’s pollution record and focused on its donation of computers to local schools. (then give
reference)
Also helpful, but shorter:
Bloggs PR Company claims to represent ‘the ethical side of PR’ but at the same time Bloggs has done
work for the mining company Smith Industries (which stands accused of polluting the Amazon river).
Bloggs PR also provided Smith with a PR campaign highlighting their CSR activities. (reference)
Make sure to provide references.
Organisations that are not well known outside certain circles – often because their members don’t
want them to be – need a short explanation of what they are, and why they feature in your article.
Ask yourself if you can improve your article’s clarity and accessibility by briefly letting the reader
know the significance of such organisations and people.
For example, in an article on Joe Bloggs, you might say something like, 'Joe Bloggs played a
prominent role in the inception of the Project for the New American Century, which openly
advocates total US military dominance.'
It also helps to give a brief description of a person’s position, even if they are well known in your
own country. Readers in Britain will know who David Cameron is, but readers in other countries will
appreciate a brief description, such as 'David Cameron, who became UK prime minister in May 2010,
...' Even 'UK prime minister David Cameron', although it will quickly become inaccurate if he is
ousted and the article is not updated, is better than nothing.
Don’t write above people’s heads
Most people will only read simple prose that flows easily from the page and are not used to reading
long and complex articles. We write for all people, and so need to pitch our material accordingly.
A good exercise for all writing is to read it aloud to yourself or someone else. If you start to stumble
or lose your way, or if your listener’s eyes glaze over, you know you need to simplify.
The following features of an article increase its difficulty level, known as the ‘boggle factor’ or 'fog
factor':







Long and complex sentences: Don’t cram too much information into one sentence. One
point of information per sentence is usually enough.
Over-long paragraphs or large bodies of unbroken text
Over-long quotations: Extract the relevant part of the quotation and tell the reader how it
backs up the point you are making. If you use a long quotation that makes a lot of points,
‘unpick’ the quotation for readers, splitting it into bite-sized pieces of information and
leading into each section with a pointer to help readers see the point of the quote.
Missing lead-in to quotations: It’s useful to ‘lead in’ to a quotation in order to prime readers
so that they know what they are supposed to get from it.
Missing conclusion to quotations: Best to provide a mini-conclusion to a quotation.
Many long, abstract, Latinate, or ancient Greek-derived words: Newspapers simplify all the
time, for instance they would write, 'Frankenfoods cancer risk – study' rather than what the
study actually said, which may be something like, the genetic modification transformation
process is imprecise and can create unpredictable effects, including proliferative changes in
the lower intestine suggestive of pre-cancerous states.
Unexplained allusions: For example, don’t mention ex-UK prime minister Tony Blair’s stance
on the Iraq War without explaining briefly what it was.
The boggle factor of an article can be measured on a points system, based on how many of the
above factors appear in an article. Every long, Latinate word, every unexplained allusion, and every
over-complex sentence will push up the boggle factor. And for every one point that the boggle factor
goes up, the article loses a substantial proportion of readers.
Using the following features decrease the boggle factor:





Short, simple sentences and paragraphs.
Short (no longer than three-syllable) words.
Concrete rather than abstract words: Often, these are Anglo-Saxon rather than Latin- or
Greek-derived, for example: 'people don’t want to eat genetically modified foods' is more
accessible than 'consumers object to genetically modified ingredients', for instance.
Brief explanations of any allusions.
Text broken up by headers that give a clue as to what follows.
Unpack mystery acronyms
Please spell out the full meaning of acronyms the first time you mention them. The first or second
time you mention the full name, insert a bracket after it with the acronym. Thereafter you are fine
with just the acronym. Thus for example:
The Biotechnology Research Association (BRA) is the major UK grant-making agency for scientific
research. The BRA approved the grant given to Dr John Smith for his research on GM tomatoes.
Use timeless language
This means that you need to assume that people will be reading your article well into the future and
so words like “now” and “currently” should be avoided. Even 'at the time of writing' and 'presently'
are not a good idea.
Incorrect:


“Joe Bloggs is now a director of Toxico.”
“Madonna is married to the film director Guy Ritchie.”
Correct:


“In 2007, Joe Bloggs was made a director of Toxico.”
“As of 2000 Madonna was married to the film director Guy Ritchie.”
(and later on, you might want to update it with their divorce in 2008).
References
Insert your reference into the body text at a point that makes the source of your information clear to
the reader. This may be after you quote or paraphrase from the article or web page to be
referenced. Where the source you are referencing is available online, make the title of the article or
web page into a weblink. Add at the appropriate point in the text. The appropriate point is in the
body of the text you are writing, and without a space behind the last word. When positioning the
reference, consider: "Is it clear what information this reference is a source for?" If it's for a quote,
then place it at the end of the quote. If it's for a bulk of text that has been paraphrased from a
source, then it would be helpful to make reference to the source and add it there. For example:

Paul Hutcheon, writing in the Sunday Herald[, reports that...
with the details of the reference appearing at the foot of the page a notes section.

Repeating References
If you go on to refer to the source again (for example, in the next paragraph) add something along
the lines of 'The report continues by stating...' This makes it clear that you are still representing
Hutcheon's views, and not necessarily your own.
There are no hard and fast rules for how to do this. It will depend upon your preferred style. But
once you've written your piece, give a moment's thought to readers who have no knowledge of
where the information has come from and ensure that it is clear.
If you use the same reference further down the text, and there is no easy way to explain in the text
that you are using the same source again, you might want to repeat the reference.
With special thanks to tobaccotactic.org, Spinwatch and Powerbase. This guidance has been taken
from text developed for the University of Bath’s tobacco tactics wiki.