Don’t be such an Editor.

I am writing these few notes because I strongly respect you, and I have learned a lot from you, your editing, your remarks, your suggestions, your appreciations. And because I learned a lot from your “Thanks, nice but we’ll pass”, “Thanks no”, “No”, and up to the several no-answers, I have decided to dedicate this contribution to you, the Editor.

If you are a journalist, and especially when you are a freelance journalist, you are probably confronted with different editorial teams and editors. I used the term different, instead of various because it is really so — editors are an extremely biodiverse populace.

When I look at my peer journalists, I note a degree of diversity too. That’s obvious, we differ for our character, background, focus, strengths and weaknesses. Yet, we all basically stick to a plus-minus standard way to pitch and produce stories.

There is a wealth of literature on how to best pitch a story. The do’s and don’ts of an effective journalist. Top tips on how to pimp your story are often proposed to journalists. If too busy and distracted to sit and read, there are Youtube videos helping you to boost your stories, things like “DIY. How to write a compelling piece of journalism for you-name-it-this-sort-of-magazines”.

If you, as a freelancer, survive a decade in this field you have either learned the skills on how to approach elusive editors, or you have a strong family caring for a generous part of your household bills.

Trust me, we invested substantial time in learning how to deal with you, dear Editor. I argue that a few recommendations on how to best deal with us could really boost our relation, improve quality, release tension, lift motivation, and possibly slow down ageing.

Here are my three points.

1. Reply to our email (or message). I understand you receive several pitches, tons of press releases, occasional complaints from unhappy readers but a no-answer is more than a sorry, pitch unaccepted. A no-answer has implications for us. We may wait some time, hours, maybe a day or two, with our story slowly or rapidly decaying in the incertitude of a possible answer that may come or may come not. We committed ourselves to send the pitch to you. Not to others. And we have other addresses in our address book. It’s not just because of the frustration of not being answered, rather it hampers our work, we are stuck, waiting for your response. It may cause serious damage. Before hitting the send button, we did some study, we invested time. We considered our potential outlets and we shaped our pitch on what we think it could suit you and your newspaper or magazine. You have no time or feel for replying? Think at least to a short, standard, reply such as the minimalistic “Thanks for your pitch, but we have to pass”. With this, we can either trash our story idea or pass it over to another editor. Want to be the silver-editor? Try this: “Thanks for your story, [but it is not the correct timing for this] or [we are more focused on this-and-that] or [add a short feedback that may help me to understand if it makes sense approaching you again in the future]. To become the golden-editor with a little effort try this one: “Thanks for your story, I liked it, unfortunately [a sentence as above]”. It’s a few types that can save freelance journalists from extinction.
2. Give us feedback. Remember we bring you fresh, quality, diverse contributions to your newspaper, newswire, or magazine. We likely came with a novel perspective and insight on a specific topic. We will probably do efforts to look for more sources, contact experts or hear voices about a specific topic. Yet, we tend to forget about our value and you rarely engage with us with constructive feedback. I, therefore, suggest that you step up and move to the next level. To do this you can read with a little more care our pitch and reply with an extended comment, constructive feedback that will help us to be better next time. What was not convincing? Was it too long? Too detailed? Too vague? Not the right day in the week? Not the best section to try with? More, what would have done it more convincing according to you (you can’t imagine how this would be appreciated on our side)? Feedback, feedback. Feedback does not need to be extended, you are not coaching us (why not, by the way?), agreed. But a reaction, the one you had while reading, kindly expressed, would be of great value. Precious food for a vulnerable species. My friend Jop de Vrieze suggested that you could even move to the next level and “stimulate us to debrief our story and discuss it without feeling bad about disturbing you”. It would make you a memorable editor among the community of freelancers. After all, if our story pitch was not persuasive enough it was a loss of time and effort for both of us. By helping us to improve, we could both save time and be more productive.
3. Consider a KF. This one contains sensitive material, I am aware of this. Well, think of… (deep breath)… Think of a kill fee if a story does not end up to be published. We all know, it may happen. You say yes, to a proposal. Later on, your competitor newspaper publishes the story and you decide to drop it. Or, your Chief Editor has a bad day and tells you that this story will not be published for an unknown reason. Or, once you read the story, you find it weak, you do not see the novelty anymore. If you agree to publish a story, in case of any change and a later decision not to publish, you should consider a minimal compensation for our work. Compensating our actual work done until the decision to drop the story is a secondary objective in a killer fee, the first objective is the recognition for our commitment. This, often symbolic, fee tells us that you really cared about our work, our efforts. It shows us that you cared about us so much that you took the phone and made a call to the administration asking please to organize a killer fee for this journalist as her/his story was cancelled. It shows us you spent three minutes and a few kilojoules to acknowledge our efforts. It is a matter of professionalism and, as we are continuously directed on being more professional in our job, I believe there is room for improvement also on the editors’ side.

I have a wonderful relation with various editors. I still remember when in my early career I was contributing to Science and I wrote a report on a prominent climate sceptic. I made unhappy both the sceptic himself and the climate scientists, they were not happy to see his name reported in the Science News section. Frustrated by this reaction I asked for feedback to my editor at Science, Rich Stone, who said: “If you have made unhappy both sides, it means it was a good story!”. I learned a lesson that time and I am still thankful today for those editors who commented on my reporting. A short conversation via Skype or over the phone would bring mutual benefit. Or, better, why not inviting us for a cup of coffee once in a while?

Indeed, sometimes editors had not too positive remarks on my stories, but the way they did it eventually helped me in improving my work. I would even suggest that you, as an editor, try and get some feedback from us. Simplifying, or optimizing, our work has an impact on your work as well.

I am deeply convinced that journalists and editors both benefit by improving mutual trust, sharing views, understanding each other.