Hingham Anchor Opinion & Op-Ed Submission Guidelines
Our opinion section provides a platform for community voices, subject matter experts, and local leaders to share thoughtful perspectives on issues that matter to our readers.
We welcome diverse viewpoints that contribute to constructive conversation, civic engagement, and informed debate. Opinion pieces reflect the views of the author and not necessarily those of our publication or editorial team.
Strong opinion submissions typically:
- Present a clear point of view or argument
- Address issues relevant to our local community or region
- Offer insight, expertise, or lived experience
- Contribute constructively to public discussion
Submission Guidelines
Length: Preferred: 600–800 words, Maximum: 1,000 words
Format: Submit as Google Doc, Word document, or pasted into email
Please include a suggested headline and photo
Author Information:
- Full name
- Town/city of residence (must be a Hingham resident)
- Professional title or affiliation (if relevant)
- Short bio (1–2 sentences)
- Contact email and phone (for verification only)
Tone & Standards
We publish opinion pieces that are:
✔ Thoughtful and respectful
✔ Fact-based and responsible
✔ Constructive in tone
We encourage strong opinions, but submissions must avoid:
- Personal attacks
- Defamatory statements
- Hate speech or discriminatory language
- Unverified accusations
- Excessive promotional content
- Transparency & Disclosures
Authors should disclose any relevant affiliations, financial interests, or leadership roles connected to the topic of their submission. These disclosures may be included in the author bio for transparency.
Publication Timing
Due to the volume of submissions, we cannot publish every piece received. Selected submissions are typically published within 1–2 weeks, depending on editorial scheduling and relevance to current topics.
Our editorial team reserves the right to decline pieces that do not meet editorial standards.
How to Submit
Send submissions to:
Info@hinghamanchor.com with “Opinion re: (insert subject) for consideration”
DON’T LET AQUARION DO TO US WHAT THEY DID TO OXFORD! Excerpted from a recent issue of The Atlantic magazine: “For years, the residents of Oxford, m=Massachusetts, seethed with anger at the company that controlled the local water supply. The company, locals complained, charged inflated prices and provided terrible service. But unless the town’s residents wanted to get by without running water, they had to pay up, again and again.
The people of Oxford resolved to buy the company out. At a town meeting in the local high-school auditorium, an overwhelming majority of residents voted to raise the millions of dollars that would be required for the purchase. It took years, but in May 2014, the deal was nearly done: One last vote stood between the small town and its long-awaited goal.
The company, however, was not going down without a fight. It mounted a campaign against the buyout. On the day of the crucial vote, the high-school auditorium swelled to capacity. Locals who had toiled on the issue for years noticed many newcomers—residents who hadn’t showed up to previous town meetings about the buyout. When the vote was called, the measure failed—the company, called Aquarion, would remain the town’s water supplier. Supporters of the buyout mounted a last-ditch effort to take a second vote, but before it could be organized, a lobbyist for Aquarion pulled a fire alarm. The building had to be evacuated, and the meeting adjourned. Aquarion retains control of Oxford’s water system to this day.
The company denied that the lobbyist was acting on its behalf when he pulled the alarm; it also denies that its rates were abnormally high or that it provides poor service. Some Oxford residents supported Aquarion, and others opposed the buyout because they feared the cost and complication of the town running its own water company. But many residents, liberal and conservative, were frustrated by the process. The vote, they felt, hadn’t taken place on a level playing field.
“It was a violation of the sanctity of our local government by big money,” Jen Caissie, a former chairman of the board of selectmen in Oxford, told me. “Their messiah is their bottom line, not the health of the local community. And I say that as a Republican, someone who is in favor of local business.”
A New England town meeting would seem to be one of the oldest and purest expressions of the American style of government. Yet even in this bastion of deliberation and direct democracy, a nasty suspicion had taken hold: that the levers of power are not controlled by the people”, but by big money.