How to read a newspaper editorial critically

How do you decide whether a newspaper editorial deserves your agreement? Start by asking what, exactly, it wants you to believe and what support it offers. Before agreeing, examine how the reasons support the conclusion.

University and college guidance on critical reading offers useful questions for this task. Use them to examine an editorial’s claim, evidence, assumptions and omissions, then check its sources. The aim is to judge the argument fairly, recognising the parts that hold up under examination.

Establish whose opinion you are reading

First identify the kind of piece in front of you. The Guardian's teaching handout describes a leader as the newspaper's main editorial column, expressing the newspaper's opinion on leading news stories. Check whether you are reading an editorial or another kind of newspaper article. An opinion column may express its writer’s view rather than the newspaper’s position.

Once you have identified the piece, approach it with a fair question: how well does it make its case? The University of Portsmouth Library describes critical reading as examining a source's strengths as well as its limitations. Give the strengths a fair hearing alongside the weaknesses. Judge the conclusion by the argument supporting it, even when it appears in a newspaper.

Put the main claim into your own words

Write down the conclusion the editorial asks you to accept. Preserve the author's meaning and make clear what they are arguing. State the position the writer takes on the subject, rather than simply naming the subject.

Then identify the reasons offered for that position and the evidence used to support those reasons. The University of Missouri's critical-reading framework asks whether the claim follows from the evidence and reasons in the text. Use that question to connect the reasons, evidence and claim. What does each piece of evidence establish? How does that help support the conclusion?

Describe the writer’s reasoning fairly before deciding whether it persuades you. Keep that account separate from your own judgement. If you cannot see how the evidence supports the claim, mark that connection as something to examine.

Test what the evidence can support

Guidance from the University of California, Berkeley asks readers to assess whether evidence is relevant, current, accurately presented and accurately interpreted. These are separate checks. Evidence needs to address the particular claim. The writer’s interpretation must stay within what the evidence supports.

Ask whether the material is current enough for the question under discussion. Judge older evidence by whether its age affects its usefulness for this argument. Check recent material for accuracy too.

Missouri's framework also asks how extensively a writer relies on other sources and whether the references are suitable. Look at what each reference contributes. Even with a long list, you still need to check whether the material is relevant and well interpreted. Judge how well the sources support the claim, rather than how many there are.

Identify what the writer takes for granted

Cuesta College's guidance describes an assumption as an idea or principle that a writer accepts as true. In an editorial, look for ideas the argument depends on but leaves unproven. Keep these separate from the evidence the writer supplies.

Ask what you would have to accept for the reasoning to work. Then look for support for that idea. If it remains unproven, note how much of the conclusion depends on it. This helps you see where your judgement of the argument might change.

Treat an assumption as a question to investigate, rather than a sign of falsehood or dishonesty. You can accept parts of the evidence while still questioning an idea needed to reach the final conclusion.

Look at omissions and opposing arguments

Portsmouth asks readers to consider what an author has emphasised or left out. Apply that question to the case being made: what relevant consideration would you need to examine before accepting it? Concentrate on omissions that might affect the reasoning. A short editorial cannot discuss every conceivable issue.

Use a missing consideration to investigate the argument’s limits. Describe the gap precisely and explain why it matters to the conclusion. A gap alone tells you nothing certain about an intention to deceive.

Berkeley adds a related test: does the author treat opposing arguments fairly and respond persuasively? Examine both the objection as presented and the answer to it. Fair treatment does not require giving every claim equal weight regardless of its evidence. Ask whether the response answers the opposing case well enough.

Follow the sources beyond the editorial

NC State University Libraries recommends checking both the credibility of cited sources and whether an article represents them accurately. Follow the reference and compare what the source says with what the editorial says it establishes. Treat the citation as the starting point for your check.

Iowa State University Library describes lateral reading as looking beyond the source under inspection to see what reputable outside sources say about it. Use those outside accounts to judge credibility beyond a polished appearance or an impressive name. Read them alongside the source’s own account of itself.

Iowa State's SIFT guidance brings together stopping, investigating the source, finding better coverage and tracing claims to their original source. Use the steps in whatever order helps you answer your questions. Check for independent verification: repeated versions of the same claim do not provide it.

Examine the language and your reaction

Cuesta suggests asking what impression you would form if different words had been used. Try restating a passage in plainer language while preserving its meaning. Then ask whether you are judging the reasons offered or reacting to the words used. Check the factual claim on its evidence, even when the language is emotional.

Examine your own reaction too. NC State asks whether an article challenges your existing opinion or confirms it. Judge reliability separately from whether you agree. Apply the same questions about evidence, assumptions and sources to a conclusion you welcome as to one you resist.

Make your next reading a considered judgement

After reading, make a short note of the claim, its strongest support, an assumption you still need to examine and a relevant omission or unanswered objection. Record what you checked at the source. Use these notes to say which parts persuade you and where you still have questions.

You can also apply those questions when drafting your own argument and organising its sources. The Learnacy Writing Studio offers a section guide, a rubric and citation tools for that work.