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.

Embarrassing, sure. And you probably forgot about it by lunch.

But I bet you’ve never sent a pitch seven years too late to four journalists, including two you just met.

Nope, that rare honor belongs to me. And in the era of gatekeepers getting fed up with bad pitches, it could have resulted in my being put in the bad PR pro corner – and the loss of potential media coverage which could have cost my company client trust and money.

Thankfully, I was able to use humor and humility to save the relationships. Two of the journalists laughed at the mistake along with me, and two of them were working with me on new stories within days.

Here’s how I made it happen.

Quickly own up to your mistakes 

It’s natural to want to duck and run after a big mistake, or to hope that everyone forgets that it happened. But the better way to handle mistakes is to acknowledge them quickly and forthrightly. After all, while media gatekeepers have little time to waste in the era of strained news budgets and fast-moving media cycles, they are also human.

Acknowledging your mistake, especially if you’re doing it proactively, bolsters your credibility. And it helps journalists know that you are not an AI bot – but instead a real person who makes mistakes, corrects them, and laughs along with them at your mistake.

This is especially important in the era of copy-and-paste pitches and platform-based media lists. Being seen as human will build real relationships with the real gatekeepers whose trust is key to securing quality media coverage.

Again, it’s easy to want to hole up and hide from a botched pitch, or to just wait a while before pitching again. But journalists get a LOT of bad pitches, so being proactive can repair a damaged bridge – and perhaps even make the relationship better because you saved the gatekeepers time they intended to spend looking at your pitch.

Have fun with it

I’m generally the most outgoing person in any zip code. Or county. Or state. It means that I’ve made a lot of mistakes that were out for the public to see.

I’ve also learned that most people understand that we all make mistakes. And if you can throw humor into the mix, they’ll probably laugh – not at you, but right along with you.

That’s what I did when I owned up to my mistake. I was also succinct, so as to not further waste anyone’s time. Here’s the email I sent:

I’m an idiot. I somehow missed that the Reuters story is seven years old. I’m going to put myself in the “bad PR pro” corner. I’m sorry for wasting your time with this pitch and follow-up.

It’s not a groveling e-mail, and it doesn’t exaggerate the offense. It’s just a humorous version of Chris Voss’ famous accusation audit – and it takes all the wind out of the offended person’s sails.

Improve 

Everyone knows what makes up a great pitch. Prior to this mistake, our process had four steps:

• Confirm the Three Ts (the right TOPIC at the right TIME from someone with the right TITLE),.

• Determine the outlets that work best for the client/employer narrative and preferred PR style.
• Dig up the gatekeepers at the outlets which are most likely to find value in what you’re  sending.
• Check each gatekeeper’s beat and style to ensure the pitch is as tailored as necessary.

Now, we have a fifth step – review the fine details of the hook. My mistake was trusting that the perfect hook Google showed me was current, because it was near the top of the search’s Page 1. It’s never been a problem before – but it was once, it may become one again, and so we need to get ahead of it so it doesn’t become the gatekeeper’s problem and my clients’ problems.

Your PR advantage – being human

The best PR pitches are those that go to the right person at the right time. But nobody’s perfect, and sometimes you will botch it. I still get pitches despite not having been a regular journalist since 2016.

But nobody is perfect, and we’ve all taken shortcuts when jammed on deadlines. We’ve missed important typos and put the wrong journalist’s name in the pitch.

By being human, you can not just save the relationship – but even improve it.

This piece was originally published by Dustin Siggins at PR Daily.