Editorial: Media in Canada
Write an editorial on one of the following two topics.
Topic One: Concentration of media ownership in Canada.
Should the Canadian government take action to limit the concentration of media
ownership in Canada?
Topic Two: Harper’s cuts to the CBC.
Should the Harper government reverse the cuts and reinvest in the CBC?
Sample Structure for Writing an Editorial
I. Lead with an Objective Explanation of the Issue/Controversy.
Include the five W's and the H. (Members of Parliament, in effort to reduce the
budget, are looking to cut funding from public television. Hearings were held …)


Pull in facts and quotations from the sources which are relevant.
Additional research may be necessary.
II. Present Your Opposition First.
As the writer you disagree with these viewpoints. Identify the people specifically who
oppose you. (Conservatives feel that these cuts are necessary; other cable stations
can pick them;)


Use facts and quotations to state objectively their opinions.
Give a strong position of the opposition. You gain nothing in refuting a weak
position.
III. Construct Your Main Argument.
Begin this part of your editorial with a transition to refute your opposition’s belief (e.g.
“Conservatives believe public television is a ‘sandbox for the rich.’ However,
statistics show most people who watch public television make less than $40,000 per
year.”). In defense of your position, give reasons from strong to strongest order.
(Taking money away from public television is robbing children of their education …)



Pull in other facts and quotations from people who support your position.
Concede a valid point of the opposition which will make you appear rational,
one who has considered all the options (fiscal times are tough, and we can
cut some of the funding for the arts; however, …).
Use a literary or cultural allusion that lends to your credibility and perceived
intelligence (We should render unto Caesar that which belongs to him …)
IV. Conclude With Some Punch.
Give solutions to the problem or challenge the reader to be informed. (Parliament
should look to where real wastes exist — perhaps in defense and entitlements — to
find ways to save money. Digging into public television's pocket hurts us all.)

A quotation can be effective, especially if from a respected source
A rhetorical question can be an effective concluder as well (If the government
doesn't defend the interests of children, who will?)
Editorial - Rubric
CATEGORY
Poor/Incomplete Unsatifactory
Satisfactory
Good
Excellent
C1 Marks C2 Marks
Objective
Explanation of the
Issue/Controversy
(C1)
14-27
28-41
Explanation of Explanation of the
the
issue/controversy
issue/controversy is inadequate or
is poor or entirely partially incorrect
incorrect
42-50
51-64
65-70
Explanation is
Explanation is well Explanation is insightful and
somewhat
developed and
demonstrates a
developed and
demonstrates a good
comprehensive
demonstrates an
understanding of the
understanding of the
adequate
issue/controversy
issue/controversy
understanding of the
issue/controversy
Objective
Presenation of
Opposition (C1)
3
4-8
9-10
11-13
Presentation of
Presentation of
Presentation of
Presentation of
opposing position opposing position opposing position is opposing position is
is incorrect or is unclear or biased somewhat unclear or clear and unbiased
absent
biased
14-15
Presentation of opposing
position is clear, unbiased
and insightful
Construction of
Main Argument
(C2)
14-27
Arguments are
unclear or nonexistant
28-41
42-50
Arguments are not
Arguments are
supported by
adequately clear and
adequate evidence
supported by
evidence
51-64
Arguments and
supporting evidence
are clear and
persuasive
65-70
Arguments and supporting
evidence are insightful and
persuasive.
Persuasive
Conclusion (C2)
3
No conclusion
4-8
Conclusion lacks
sufficient clarity.
The reader is left
unsure of the
author's opinion.
11-13
Conclusion is clear
and persuasive.
14-15
Conclusion is very
persuasive and demonstrates
clear insight into issue at
hand. The reader is left with
a strong impression of the
author's opinion.
Spelling, Grammar
&
Punctuation(C1&2)
1
No evidence of
editing.
4
Well edited but a few
errors remain.
5
Error-free
Referencing
(C1&2)
2
No referencing
8-9
Referencing is well
done
10
Referencing is perfect
9-10
Conclusion is
adequately clear and
persuasive.
2
3
Inadequate editing.
Some editing is
Too many errors evident but several
errors remain.
3-5
Referencing is
inadequate
6-7
Referencing is
adequate
Totals: