op-ed

plural op-eds

1. A newspaper page containing signed articles by commentators expressing viewpoints that may not agree with those espoused by the editorial board, traditionally printed opposite the editorial page.

   The purpose of an op-ed is to offer an opinion. It is not a news analysis or a weighing up of alternative views. It requires a clear thesis, backed by rigorously marshaled evidence, in the service of a persuasive argument.

   2017 August 26, Bret Stephens, “Tips for Aspiring Op-Ed Writers”, in The New York Times, →ISSN, archived from the original on 20 Dec 2017

comparative more op-ed · superlative most op-ed

1. Of or being a newspaper page, usually opposite the editorial page, that features signed articles expressing personal viewpoints.

   The question was probably bottomed on a combination of phrases in a Washington Post op-ed article that appeared not three months before by Richard Haass, who was a foreign-policy adviser in both Bush administrations and is now president of the Council on Foreign Relations.

   2009 May 8, William Safire, “Choice or Necessity”, in The New York Times, archived from the original on 25 Oct 2015

2. Of an article, written in a style suitable for publication as an op-ed.

   For a more ‘op ed’ approach to the current state of the Hong Kong art scene see my recent article "Doer's Droop," South China Morning Post, August 23, 2005, C6.

   2005, Art & Collection Group, Journal of Contemporary Chinese Art

3. Of a person, regularly expressing viewpoints by means of op-eds.

   Descriptions of him vary from "aggressively intelligent," "inventive," "articulate," "the most ‘op-ed’ academic in the field of education" to "arrogant" "combative," "hostile," and "dismissive" of ideas not his own.

   1991, The New York Times, The New York Times biographical service, volume 22, Arno Press

present singular third person op-eds · participle present op-edding · participle past op-edded · past op-edded

1. ambitransitiverareTo write an op-ed article.

   Getting either or both of the Cubs and Red Sox into the World Series on their hallowed home fields had been a happy possibility nationally discussed and op-edded since July, and when the two teams were again dispatched winless into winter their fans were left with a last gnawing weirdness: […]

   2003 November 17, Roger Angell, “Gone South”, in The New Yorker, archived from the original on 06 May 2017