Handling Controversial Writing Assignments

What’s on the iPod: Best of My Love by The Eagles

You are what you write, aren’t you?

If you’re good at what you do, no. Recently, I wrote an article on a controversial topic for a favorite editor. I knew when I wrote it there would be debate. And boy, there has been. I’ve seen people choosing sides, arguing with each other and, in one case, lashing out at me and resorting to childish name-calling tactics to attempt to “enlighten” me.

What’s interesting about this particular article is I made absolutely no conclusions on the validity or lack thereof of the topic — the anti-vaccine movement. I didn’t come down on either side, but rather rode the middle and made objective observations based solely on facts.

Ah, but that’s never quelched a good debate, has it?

Editors love debates, especially online, because it drives new traffic to their sites and creates an impression of the publication as one that presents interesting ideas. Who wouldn’t love that? Writers love debates too (or we should) because it creates a value for us in the eyes of our editors — we can write about something many people would shrink away from.

If we handle it right, that is.

When I got that first angry email, I’ll admit I was a little nervous. What if the editor didn’t like what was being said? What if my facts, which I’d been so careful with, were suddenly full of holes?

Even years of journalism training doesn’t alleviate entirely that feeling, I’ve found.

So here’s how I handle controversial writing assignments:

Have multiple sources. For my article, I was careful to make sure the sources I used were trustworthy, reputable sources (reputable in the opinion of the majortity of the population). I made sure also to back up one study with another. In each instance of a statement made or conclusion drawn, it’s never a bad idea to look for another similar conclusion from independent sources. In one case, I used a Harvard Law study to solidify what the CDC has concluded. One is an independent, trusted organization; the other a government agency, trusted by many. In this case, the anti-vaccine proponents do not hold the CDC or pharmaceutical companies in very high regard, so having an independent group backing up the facts is a good idea.

Refuse anything but the facts. If your client is asking you to write or ghostwrite a story that is completely biased, you can decide if it’s appropriate for you to do so. For example, if your client wants you to write a sales ad stating how his company is the most experienced and best company in his field, chances are that’s not going to be harmful to write. If, however, the client or editor wants you to write a pro-chemical article, for example, extolling the virtues of a chemical process that may be killing people, that might not be an assignment you want to take unless they allow you to present the opposing viewpoint.

Don’t engage in debate. In this case, I let 85 comments accumulate and a few days pass before I responded at all. I wasn’t going to, but the editor was loving the discussion and invited me to respond. When I responded, I kept it respectful (despite being called everything but a Christian) and included links to my facts. Taking on one or more of the commenters was tempting, but it would have served no useful purpose, and I don’t want potential clients seeing me locking horns with readers.

Stay neutral. The bigger reason I didn’t lock horns was that I could see both sides of the debate quite clearly. I didn’t make conclusions in the article, and I sure as hell wasn’t going to make them after the fact. My job was to present facts. That’s what I did.

Include both sides when possible. The strange part of all this is that the article was about how insurers should approach the various aspects of the anti-vaccine movement and claims stemming from or alleged to stem from unvaccinated people. I didn’t have to present the other side, but I did. I found a source who was quoted quite heavily, who’s had firsthand experience with autism in her family. Her words were important not only because of the personal connection, which I didn’t know about until we’d talked, but also because of her status as an attorney handling insurance claims. Be fair to both sides in any issue. You’re going to say things that will ignite debate, but if you present each side, they’ll be debating the issues much more than your inability to see both sides.

Say no if it doesn’t fit. There are times you don’t mind writing about something that isn’t exactly in line with your own thinking. For instance, I was able to write about a different political party because what I was writing wasn’t necessarily political, but insightful. And I work off the belief that none of the parties want this country to fail. It’s an opportunity to learn and understand a bit better what makes people tick. Still, there are topics you may feel so strongly against that objectivity isn’t possible. Stick with your convictions and never change your mind just for the money. It’s never worth it to lose your integrity.

Writers, how do you handle controversial topics?