I get a lot of questions on this issue. So, I’ve written down all the answers. I also was partly inspired by Jessica Reed, the U.S. features editor at the Guardian, who not only has a wonderfully detailed guide for pitching her but updates it often.

On rules and rigidity

First of all, though, no obligation to read this. Reading these guidelines will help a writer, but it doesn’t mean that each must be obeyed to the letter in every situation, or that following these is the only path to getting published. Not every item in these guidelines will apply to everyone, and some may apply to some writers more so than others. I do not expect anyone to read these guidelines in their entirety.

Response expectations

When dealing with breaking news, we might be working toward a next-day or even same-day publication. But such situations, while bound to come up every now and then, are not the norm, and the bar for what constitutes breaking news is high.

Please allow up to three to five business days for a response. I unfortunately receive a lot of mail. Barring exceptional circumstances, I review new pitches and engage with new correspondence only on Tuesdays and Wednesdays; for pieces on which I’ve passed, I cannot give individual feedback or reconsider; and I do not give provide guidelines outside of this document.

Please note that a rejection is not an indictment of the submission. I get sent way more pieces than I have space for, and I’m forced to turn down the vast majority.

Outline or fully written pieces?

Either is fine. But please note that outlines carry inherent uncertainty. For those who do not have track records as journalists or writers, it is highly likely I would need to see the fully written piece.

Administrative guidelines

Submissions must be exclusive to the Globe and Mail and must not have appeared elsewhere.

Opinion pieces are usually 750 words or so. Occasionally we do run longer ones, but the longer it gets, the higher the bar is.

Just like how, in a legislature, lawmakers can address only the speaker and not each other, we do not do rebuttals to previously published columns. Those would have to be in the letters to the editor section.

While the Globe’s main opinion section will likely have many of the same guidelines, I speak only for the business section. Please note, though, that Natasha Hassan, or any of the other editors in the main opinion section she oversees, usually bump their business pitches to me and vice-versa. If I decline something and it gets pitched to Natasha, it is highly likely that it comes back to me.

What I’m looking for

I won’t rehash the basics of an opinion piece. The New York Times has an excellent guide on that.

While I do have a duty to cover hard business issues such as the economy, finance and various industries, my section is not all about those. Almost any issue can have a business angle. The podcast Freakonomics demonstrates this well. I’ve run pieces on the businesses of the World Cup and of the singer Rihanna.

Aside from the obvious good writing, the best opinion pieces have takes that go against the grain, that challenge conventional thinking, that say the unexpected. Some of my favourite pieces that I have run:

“Canada’s overly educated work force is nothing to be proud of”

“All our pension funds are in trouble – we ignore this looming crisis at our peril”

“Canada’s $1.1-trillion debt is shockingly high – it threatens all that we value”

“Yes, the Bank of Canada has waged a ‘class war’ – but not the one you think”

“In praise of meetings: Shopify’s scrapping of them was gutsy, but not all are bad”

“$37 chicken wasn’t Galen Weston’s fault, but Loblaw needs to repent nonetheless”

“Nordstrom’s sorry exit from Canada raises the question: What was it all for?”

“Netflix’s desperate crackdown on password sharing shows it might fail like Blockbuster”

For further guidance, please take a look at past pieces that have run in the Report on Business’s opinion section. Anything that does not have a face next to it on a white background (those are staff columnists) is an opinion piece that I have accepted.

I am always looking for pieces tied to planned events: central bank rate decisions; government budgets, announcements and policy changes; earnings seasons; milestones in major court or regulatory cases or corporate developments; visits by major foreign politicians, etc. While you are certainly welcome to try me on the day of, please note that I do tend to plan for these some time in advance.

What I’m not looking for

(There are exceptions to every rule, of course, but the bar for exceptions is always high.)

1.      ‘Instead of doing this badly, we need to do it goodly’

There are two types of too-obvious takes. The first is obvious because of the substance of what is said. I also like to call this the Kim Jong-un guidance take. In North Korean propaganda events, cameras and press follow the leader Kim as he goes to farms, factories and workplaces to give “on-the-spot guidance.” Kim would be surrounded by generals and staff diligently taking notes. Then Kim would say something blindingly obvious, like, “If we make these frames for dormitories beds sturdier, the beds would last longer.”

The second type of too-obvious take is obvious because of who is saying it. A lobby group for avocado farmers might say, for example, “If we develop better regulation, if the government were to better fund certain programs, then the industry would become more successful.”

A variation of this, “The bad things about this industry are a distraction from the good things about it.”

2.     Jamming too many things into a piece

There are takes that point out a problem. There are takes that propose a solution. While most takes do have elements of both, rarely does one work if both are given equal weight. The two items compete with each other, and an opinion piece needs to be about one thing. In addition, for the solutions piece, the bar is high. Often, solutions all boil down to, “Instead of doing this badly, we need to do it goodly.” A solutions piece only works if the solution is novel.

And no listicles or Chinese diplomacy statements. When the Chinese government concludes bilateral agreements, they always title it curiously with a number: “The Memorandum of Five Understandings,” for example. There might have seven solutions for turning around Canada’s economy, but please focus on one.

3. Analysis

There are many facets to any issue, and there are always more takes available than the binary for or against. But an opinion piece still needs to argue for something. No coming down the middle and weighing both sides of the issue without going somewhere with it.

And no playing reporter. While I love reported opinion pieces, those have original reporting that reveal something new or unexpected. The bulk of a column should not be summing up already-happened events that are public knowledge.

4.    Saying things without saying them

No takes that go, “This industry is doing very well, and we need to make it better.” If an industry needs to be made better so badly that it needs to be said in an opinion piece in a newspaper, then that industry is obviously not doing well enough. We need to say that outright.

Likewise, no Vladimir Putin televised addresses. Every time the Russian president talks to his people about a sensitive matter, he never names his political opponent du jour, for fear of giving them publicity or acknowledgement. Whatever premise underlies an argument, that needs to be stated. If a writer is pushing back on criticism levelled against an industry, example, there needs to an acknowledgment that such criticism exists.

Fun fact

“Op-ed” refers to “opposite the editorial page.” It’s a reference to the section as a whole, not an individual piece, although it can be used adjectively a la “op-ed article.”