In an AI-Obsessed Age, Op-eds Still Matter
Communications professionals have spent the past decade adapting to an increasingly fragmented media environment. LinkedIn newsletters, podcasts, Substack, owned content hubs, and AI-generated publishing tools now allow anyone to publish instantly and at scale.
That shift has led many clients to forego one of the oldest tools of PR – the op-ed. After all, why would you create content that someone else might change (without permission), fight to get space, and then possibly have to get through a paywall to make it matter?
This was the topic for a recent Cracking the Comms Code show. And what three op-ed editors said is that their audiences, from local to industry to nationally political, still see tremendous value from what many people mistakenly think of as a dinosaur tactics.
Here’s what they said – as well as how editors evaluate submissions, what makes pitches succeed or fail, and the important role editorial judgment plays even in an age of unlimited self-publishing.
Third-Party Validation Matters – Especially to New Audiences
One of the clearest takeaways from the discussion was that publication in an established outlet still carries weight with readers in ways self-publishing often does not.
As David Mills, former deputy opinion editor at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, explained, readers understand intuitively that an op-ed published by a newsroom has passed through an editorial process. Someone evaluated the argument, assessed the quality, and decided that the writer had something worthwhile to say.
Audiences today live in a world flooded with content. Anyone can post opinions online or launch a newsletter. The new addition to this landscape is AI generating endless commentary. But earned publication still signals credibility because it reflects outside judgment rather than self-selection.
For emerging executives, niche experts, or organizations trying to establish authority quickly, that editorial validation remains enormously valuable.
Washington Technology senior reporter Ross Wilkers also emphasized that self-published content often circulates only within existing networks. Op-eds, on the other hand, allow communicators to move beyond their core audiences and enter broader industry conversations.
There is a “quality” difference here (reach), and also a “quality” difference (legitimacy). A LinkedIn post may reinforce existing relationships — fine. But an op-ed in a respected publication can introduce an executive or organization to entirely new audiences.
That mirrors broader industry trends. Research from Cision found that storytelling and media relations remain among the most valuable PR skills despite the growth of AI and digital publishing channels.
Editors Want Useful Arguments, Not Corporate Messaging
The panelists repeatedly returned to one issue that frustrates editors across every vertical: advertisements disguised as a submission.
Communicators often have clients or bosses who approach op-eds with a marketing mindset. The people at the top want to announce a launch, highlight a product, elevate a spokesperson, or promote an initiative. Editors, however, are evaluating a different question: will readers care?
David explained that overtly promotional submissions are often rejected immediately because they prioritize a client’s goals over what the editor and his publication need to deliver to their audience. Readers will go to the grocery store circular if they want somebody to sell them something.
Carl Cannon, White House Bureau Chief for Real Clear Politics, said the same thing happens in political opinion essays. Those who have an overtly partisan agenda are often saying the same old things, but dressing them up as something new.
The editorial page is for something else entirely.
The strongest submissions frame organizational expertise around broader issues affecting readers. A technology company — or the agency representing it — should not write an op-ed saying its platform is innovative. Rather, it should explain a cybersecurity challenge reshaping the industry, describe implementation lessons learned, or explore emerging risks organizations are failing to address.
In other words, the best op-eds educate, and inspire interest, first. Then, if there’s time, space, and audience buy-in to promote, they promote.
Fairness and Intellectual Credibility Matter More Than Outrage
The editors also highlighted an issue increasingly relevant in the social media era: the difference between attention and persuasion.
Online platforms often reward emotional intensity, ideological certainty, and outrage-driven commentary. Editorial pages generally do not.
Carl argued that editors are drawn to writers who engage opposing viewpoints honestly rather than caricaturing them. One of his central standards is simple: an op-ed should treat the opposing argument with as much respect and rigor as if it were the writer’s own position.
From an audience perspective — and thus from the editor’s perspective, too — intellectual confidence beats exaggeration and personal attacks every time. The latter might be easier to dash onto a page and send out the door. But editors do not have time to salvage pieces that begin with ad hominem language and emotionally charged rhetoric. They’ll move on.
Ross noted that strong op-eds often resemble strategic briefing documents. They anticipate skepticism and respond to likely objections. Communications professionals can take note: thought leadership has to be more than simply asserting expertise. Showing that we did our homework is what makes an editor look twice.
The Best Pitches Begin With Understanding the Publication
Another recurring frustration among the editors involves poorly targeted outreach.
Carl noted that many pitches reveal immediately that the communicator does not actually understand the publication he’s contacting. Editors, overwhelmed with submissions especially in our age of mass-produced content, can’t spare time or energy for amateurish research.
Examples abound for communications professionals looking to start editor relationships on the right foot. Regional newspapers prioritize local relevance. Trade publications focus on helping professionals navigate operational challenges. Political outlets emphasize policy and public debate. A pitch that ignores those distinctions is unlikely to succeed, regardless of writing quality.
Finally, there is relationship management — going beyond good outlet research and good (human-centered) writing, and remembering that the editor himself is a human being, too. For example, editors are overwhelmed with email, which makes follow-ups necessary, because pitches genuinely get missed. But then there is a line between persistence and pushiness, and sometimes it’s a thin one.
Professional communicators succeed when they recognize editors as partners serving audiences, not gatekeepers standing in the way of promotion.
Artificial Intelligence Is Increasing the Value of Human Perspective
No discussion about the world of editorial would be complete with addressing the elephant in the room: artificial intelligence.
The editors acknowledged that AI tools are already reshaping publishing workflows. Newsrooms are experimenting cautiously with automation, drafting assistance, and workflow efficiencies. At the same time, editors remain deeply skeptical of overreliance on AI-generated content.
That skepticism reflects a broader industry concern. As AI-generated material floods inboxes and content platforms, editors are increasingly looking for qualities that feel distinctly human: lived experience, authentic perspective, original framing, nuanced judgment.
Ironically, the rise of AI may strengthen the strategic value of thoughtful op-eds. Low-quality AI-generated thought leadership may increase output volume. But more output is only as good as the willingness of editors to accept it. More often, editors are getting tired of generic content, and also getting better at sniffing it out.
The firms that stand out will have invested in authentic expertise, sharper storytelling, and unique perspectives. These commodities will rise in value as AI slop tsunami keeps on rolling in, and the value of an editor’s judgment will rise with them. Comms professionals who give up on this still-valuable system in favor of greener AI pastures may find that the grass over there doesn’t taste so good.
See the entire panel conversation below.
