The layers of Nickens

I never thought I would hear a writer of any kind say, “Sometimes you’re aiming at one person,” but those were Tim Nickens’ words exactly.
Nickens, the Editor of editorials at the St Petersburg Times, delivered that boom rather unexpectedly.

Up until this point, it had appeared to be the most relaxed session that we had ever had with a guest speaker.
Unlike our previous visitors, Nickens didn’t quite take over the floor. Professor Thelen and Nickens engaged in conversation, looking to spark a dialogue amongst the whole class. But quite frankly, the class seemed so disengaged that at one point Nickens joked that he took requests.

When I heard Nickens say, “You’re trying to stimulate and provoke thought,”
I just assumed that there might not be much new to learn from this guy, this concept had been explored before.

But I soon learned that I had been hasty in my judgment.

After being taught to write in terms of targeting a certain demographic, or even a diverse community, he told our class that editorials could and should be aimed for one specific person.
At this point, he had my attention. I wanted to hear him explain this.

He clarified that this technique is usually designed for someone who has the power effect the most people, such as officials, members of government and head of corporations. He began to make perfect sense.
“You’re trying to convince them to do the right thing,” Nickens said.

As the class carried on, I became more intrigued. The layers of Nicken’s onion slowly began to peel. He discussed his start as an editorial writer.
“I didn’t think I could do it” he said, sharing a glimpse of his vulnerability.

Much like our other guests, after relying so heavily on reporting, he was scared to use his voice.

“Objectivity is a shield” he said.

After going through a mind shift, he became more comfortable with editorials and found them liberating.

He went on to say that most editorials can be argued on either side of the issue, and this was exemplified when I shared my topic for editorial three.

After sharing that I planned on writing against Obama’s desire to extend the date for the switch from analog to digital television, I received advice from Nickens on how I could write this argument, saying how it could financially affect stations running on both systems.

Then fellow class mate, Thomas King, argued that there should be an extension because people have received defective equipment for the digital switch. He also pointed out that having the switch too soon could negatively impact two sects of our society that are often ignored: The poor and the old.

Both arguments could make for an excellent editorial, but Nickens told us that whatever way we go, this must be clear to the reader.

“The worst thing is a mushy editorial, where you don’t know whether it’s for or against a point.” He said.

As he took the point one step further, he shared one of the best pieces of advice I’d heard from one of Thelen’s guest speakers thus far: First paragraph, hammer it home. Last paragraph, hit them again so you’ve left no doubt.

As I continue to find my way in the land of editorial writing, I’ll be clear on which side I am writing about, and who I am writing for.