I don’t like the controversial style and I never adopt it.

However, sometimes I make comparisons showing the lack of knowledge of doctors and dream interpreters, but without attacking anyone in particular or any specific company and without being offensive. I always explain that this is not their fault because reality is too complex and the human being is too ignorant.

Controversy always attracts a negative component.

It’s guaranteed.

Therefore, we’ve determined that the upside benefit to articles that are very controversial are not worth it compared to the huge downside potential.

I think if of this kind of writing as being more if a journalistic or reportage style rather than simply first person opinionated letter to the editor stuff.

It is easy enough to stimulate controversy by simply showing the conflict between opposing points of view or alternative theories without taking a specific side.

This is not to say that one can’t declare a preference for a specific point of view, so long as it serves a purpose to do so. It is important to note however that in doing so you may lose readers who hold an opposite point of view.

I’ve always found it best to write in such a way that it is should not be perceived as proselytizing.

I maintain that ezine

When I advocated for writing a balanced article I really meant trying to describe the nature of the controversy it’s, fairly accurately. A simple example might be an article about buying back links. This has been common practice which which Google has condemned.

Google’s policies are a matter of record and they have undertaken to directly challenge the practice. something that could effect the page rank of hundreds and thousands of sites.

There are a number of sites that still sell links and likely a number of people who buy them. An article about this topic would be timely and would would likely attract strong interest from readers.

Should we not write about a subject of this nature because it is controversial or should we do so in a manner that, as fairly as possible represents the nature of the issue?

If I wrote an article about ice cream, I might use the title Vanilla or Chocolate which flavor do you favor?

If I write that Vanilla is the still the most popular flavor of ice cream, which a factual statement. Those who favor chocolate however might see this as slanting the article unfairly.

The only way to avoid such a perception would be to write the article is such a insipid fashion so as to be so politically correct as be be ridiculous,

Eg: Vanilla and Chocolate are both very popular flavors.

Please understand my point, I am not advocating that writers should intentionally write articles so as to solicit controversy. Ezine Articles are not likely to be picked up by a supermarket tabloid publisher. This is clearly not the place for so called “Yellow Journalism”

I am only stating that virtually all articles will be seen by someone as have something to which they disagree or take exception.

The balance I seek to achieve is to, find some means to avoid creating an article which is obviously slanted or clearly biased in which a way so as to invite it to be attacked.

It is of course important for all writers to write with a view to how their work will be perceived. One should take care to avoid inflections in the writing that create an impression which was not intended.

Clearly it is unwise to deliberately evoke a negative response to those publications that pick up your work. At the same time it is the function of the writer to convey information which the reader will find to be of value.

To do that one can observe and report as accurately as possible and use skill and craft to present the facts in the most balanced manner possible.

In my writting I am rarely controvercial because I have an inclusionist mentality and try not to alienate people. However I am not afraid to say something if it needs to be said.

For example the fact that if you have a beach house location you need to consider that it may be under several inches of water in within the next 10 years due to global warming. Glaciers melting in the northern hemisphere and ice bergs breaking away and melting in the southern hemisphere is not theory, it is fact!

The deliberate and intentional creation of an article which is specifically written to be controversial is bad idea. This is especially true if the article was written as part of a marketing campaign. It would be a foolish and counter productive to create an article which causes readers to agree or disagree with the writer.

Writing about a controversy however another matter. One of the objectives of article writing is to develop credibility or authority as an author. To do this it may be important to write about topics which are controversial by nature. The challenge in doing this is to fairly represent all sides of the issue without obviously taking sides.

Professional journalists and reporters face this kind of challenge everyday. Anyone who writes about non fiction subjects must find a way to use their writers craft to fairly and accurately represent their subject without injected personal bias.

The real question here is what represents a controversy? It is a question which is not actually all that easy to answer. If, as an example I write and article advocating email marketing as a viable and valuable part of a marketing campaign is that subject controversial or not.

There are many internet marketers who argue that email marketing is a useless exercise and a waste of time and money. They might argue that the only viable marketing strategy is placing PPC ads and then write articles which promote that position.

By promoting a different marketing strategy I am being controversial? How do we measure what is or is not a controversial subject?

From my perspective a controversial article is one in which the writer takes a position which clearly and obviously attacks or defames another point of view. e.g. “People who believe Global Warming is Caused by Human Activity are Idiots”.

This would be quite different from writing an article about the ongoing controversy about global warming. In my opinion presenting facts about a topic in a fair and balanced manner is the mark of a professional writer.

If you can write and article which offers the reader good information, that helps them form their own opinions your writing will be seen to have value and you as a writer will gain stature and develop a reputation as an authority.

I created a new author name S Meadowcroft to launch a series of articles on energy savings.

Regards Simon

Simon has also put his finger clearly on my earlier points. If ever there was a clear example of a controversial subject it would be the ongoing debate about the environment. There is virtually no subject related to the environment which is not fraught with ontroversy.

Journalists face the problem of writing about controversial subjects daily. As professionals they can’t say to their editor, I’m sorry but I can’t write about this topic because it is controversial.

Clearly they can’t write in such a manner that would alienate or anger a percentage of their readers. It would simply be counter productive and economically irresponsible to write articles which might damage the reputation of the publication and possibly hurt circulation or readership.

Faced with such a challenge a professional writer must find a way to write about a controversial topic while not becoming part of that controversy.

If done well then the resulting articles will in fact attract readers and become an important way for them to fully understand something which previously they did not.

As I understand it, that is in fact the whole point of article marketing.

If I cannot find a discussion forum which addresses the area I want to discuss I put it on my own blog or try to set up a discussion furum in that area.

If people have comments about somebody’s article they can always add a comment about that article in the comments section. Personally my comments are always positive because I think that we should all try to support each other.

In the end this is a site for posting articles and not a discussion forum. The forums which do exist here are all related to article writting.

I would suggest that there should also be forums for people who are mainly interested in using this site as a reader resource but that is just my personal crusade at the moment.

Perhaps my own point of view is rather peculiar, in that I write a [mostly] weekly column on my website — but that column has included as many as nearly three dozen separate stories.

And the topics are all over the map.

Sometimes I *report* on controversy, even going so far as to explicitly state that no reader should try to figure out my personal stance. I do this when what *I* think is utterly beside the point; I’m more or less functioning as a “sign post” pointing to a controversy my readers might not yet know about but want to do so once they’re aware of it.

On much rarer occasion, I wade in myself. but I live in a country with draconian libel laws, laws carrying not only civil penalties, but also criminal ones — so I have to choose my battles wisely.

In these cases, the hardest part is to get the reader to understand I’m attacking a *position* — not a person; ad hominem attacks are generally useless. Some of my best friends hold views I absolutely oppose, so it would be hypocritical of me to attack them as people, instead of challenging their ideas. We respect each other while disputing details. I extend that to my writing.

I also take great pains to present each side of an issue, especially when I myself am weigh in in on one or the other of them.

Chris makes the point of the downside of too much controversy. I don’t *think* I put too much into my mix, a conclusion derived from writing the column a decade yet being taken to task maybe 304 times only. I mean 3-4 times when the writer wasn’t some idiot flaming because I happened to mention my favorite color is blue and he’s raving how I ought to burn in hell forever (or whatever) because everyone knows blue is evil or drives people mad or some such pap.

Chris, another point is this, and it’s obvious, as I’m sure you agree: someone powerful can use controversy more readily than someone not powerful. I’m thinking “powerful” in the broadest sense, not just political power or something like that. For instance, take the case of Don Imus, the famous shock jock. Given his enormous draw, he can get away with a heck of a lot I never would dare even entertain, even were I so inclined. But he can, and does. And good for him he can. (Though I disagree with Imus on just about everything, I do have to tip my hat to him in this regard.)

Me? I have little influence and just about zero power, so, to come full circle, I do wade in — judiciously.