Five steps to write a Letter to the Editor that gets published
I wrote my first Letter to the Editor out of anger. I felt like The Economist had misrepresented Australia’s refugee policies in an overly rosy way and wanted them to know about it. After two weeks of silence, I was published for the first time ever in print by a major news outlet. Since then, I’ve written three published Letters to the Editor in the Economist and the FT. Some readers have asked if there’s any particular approach I take, and there is.
Letters to the Editor are not the same as an official by-line for a commissioned piece, and I know I can’t just keep writing letters. But they’re a start. Whether you want to see your name in print, or are just passionate about an issue, here’s how you can make that start too.
Step One: read the publication
This may seem obvious, but it is difficult to respond credibly to something in a publication if you don’t read it.
Regular reading gives you a sense of the topics they cover, viewpoints they value and gaps in their typical reporting. The FT covers financial issues and UK politics, unsurprisingly. For some reason, they also publish a lot of letters on energy and climate, which is great for me. The Economist similarly covers diverse business topics and is more opinionated, so they are easy to disagree with. They also might be more likely to publish a letter if it relates to their cover stories.
By regularly reading the publication, you also pick up the style of writing that they like to feature. The Economist tends to favour writing with a bit of flourish, while the FT is more serious.
Step Two: pick out what they’ve missed
Editors are unlikely to publish a letter if you regurgitate what is said in the original piece. I find it harder to respond to the pieces on my sectors in the Guardian, for example, since I often agree with the author. However, disagree within reason. A vitriolic keyboard warrior email without any evidence for your views probably won’t take you far.
Even though you might like the publication, try reading with a critical eye, rather than a believing one. You’re more likely to find what they’ve left out of the original story, or gotten wrong in their piece, if you know the subject matter well. I wrote about Australian refugee policy because I used to live there, and believed that Australia’s policies were worse than the Economist made them out to be. My recent letters have leaned on my energy and climate investing experience in the UK and Africa. In these, journalists often discussed the government or the private sector, and I brought in the alternate viewpoint.
For example, from a quick scan of this week’s Economist, three Letters to the Editor ideas jump out:
Britain’s Labour government has declared war on NIMBYs – this piece is about planning for housing and infrastructure development, which I researched recently
Why most battery-makers struggle to make money – I’ve written about EVs in the past
The CEO’s alternative summer reading list – book lists often under-represent women authors, which I’ve written about previously
Step Three: make an opinionated argument
A Letter to the Editor needs to have an opinion (a balanced perspective respecting all viewpoints is not as much fun to read), and if you have an argument to back it up, even better. They may send your letter to the author of the piece to see if your response is reasonable, and to fact-check the claims you make.
I typically explain what the original author missed, then outline the counterpoints with evidence. Your evidence can be from data, personal experience or an anecdote – this is not an academic paper after all – and will land better than a general statement.
These are rough outlines for my examples above:
Britain’s Labour government has declared war on NIMBYs – in my response I would show that there are NIMBYs even in the Labour party, ideally by looking at planning approval records for Labour and Conservative councils. I would further argue that there is a tension with prioritising housing and other infrastructure like data centres, as was the case in London when property developers were told that they could not commission new houses in the next few years because there wasn’t enough grid connection capacity left.
Why most battery-makers struggle to make money – the author argues that there has not been a boom in electric vehicles. A quick letter would respond with data on uptake in various countries and to show how much this has changed even in the last 5 years.
The CEO’s alternative summer reading list– of course, the author recommends only 1 book by a woman out of 13 suggestions, even though this is a list of fiction recommendations where women are better represented than in non-fiction. I would highlight the inequality in representation and that this would’ve been a great opportunity to highlight women’s fiction leadership. Then I’d suggest 3 books by women, written in the same style as the original piece, linking the book themes to their management takeaways. I will probably write this letter this week.
Of course, you can take a different approach, so long as it’s interesting and entertaining. Some letter-writers tell stories related to the article, or write funny poems about their sagging boobs. Do what works for you and your style.
Step Four: Cut, Cut, Edit and Cut
Letters to the Editor are short. The longest I’ve seen published in the Economist is 250 words but usually they are 100-150. The FT recommends 250 up to no more than 400. They will also edit your pieces for brevity or content if they see fit.
Some say that one of the best ways to measure a writer is by the quality of the writing that they leave out of the final product. There’s no shame in writing a longer piece as your first draft, then ruthlessly cutting it down until it meets the criteria for a letter. You can see this process in action if you compare my original draft for a Letter on the solar industry in Africa to the final published product, or my piece on Canadian carbon credits and the condensed letter version.
In this editing process you can also inject some style. Are there any adjectives you can make more exciting? Analogies you can use to bring your argument to life more succinctly? This will make your piece stand out versus a stock-standard academic critique of the original article.
At this stage you may also wish to consult a friend or colleague to give you feedback. Ideally you’d ask someone who reads that publication to opine on what arguments resonate and what could be cut. I ask a lucky charm reviewer for thoughts on my Economist letters, for example.
Step Five: Send and be responsive
If you believe in the content, don’t be afraid to send off the letter! Make sure you follow all their instructions, for example sending it in plain text email, and providing your full name and location or address if it is required. Also include any relevant professional credentials if it is important for your letter content, as well as potential conflicts of interest.
Once it’s out there, in all likelihood, the editor will not respond – but don’t be discouraged. They receive hundreds of such letters and cannot possibly publish every one. But if they do like your hot take, they might send you a question or clarification before publication. You need to be responsive if you want to get published.
Go forth and write!
If you do decide to go for it and write a letter to the editor, let me know. If you’d like a review of your proposed letter or simply just a pep talk and some encouragement, I would be happy to help!
PS: to my regular readers
Today is my 80th post since starting this project just under three months ago. Many of you share thoughts on individual pieces or in passing when we catch up, but I invite you all to share any feedback on what has worked well and what hasn’t over the past few months, so that I can improve. Thanks!