Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Art of Pitching: How I Got Published in The Atlantic

upupgrow.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 97 posts

Re: The Art of Pitching: How I Got Published in The Atlantic

#71

Post by coldtea »

Fnoord wrote: post #45
swalsh wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.upupgrow.com/blog/2017/1/3/how-to-validate-deman...

If we want to combat clickbaiting, we need to stop making websites profitable the more they're read. If we take action to install uBlock (blocking) or AdNauseam (fake clicking), we make it at least less effective. In the latter case, we turn it around.

Well, clickbait might mean "BS content" to you, but it means "stuff we want to read" for those clicking on those links.

We had clickbait titles for ages now for them to actually be a "bait" for anyone. Almost everybody knows what they'll get when they click on a listicle or a gossipy title or whatever, and they click on because they like the content.

Re: The Art of Pitching: How I Got Published in The Atlantic

#72

Post by coldtea »

forgotmypw wrote: post #70
mike2477 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So this isn't entirely true either.. Here's my take: What I did wrong - I didn't run the quotes by Pieter before publishing. I was on a tight deadline, and I simply skipped this step. That was a mistake, but not unethical. Journalists are not required to run quotes by their sources. I only quoted from what Pieter told me. Those who want to verify can hear the whole interview here -- https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B…

>I didn't run the quotes by Pieter before publishing. I was on a tight deadline, and I simply skipped this step. That was a mistake, but not unethical. Journalists are not required to run quotes by their sources. I only quoted from what Pieter told me. Isn't that called quoting out of context?

No, quoting out of context is when you omit parts to make a quote show someone saying something with different meaning than what he originally said.

The journalist here may have or may haven't done that, but not because he haven't run the quote by the source. You can quote perfectly in context without running the quote by the source.

Re: The Art of Pitching: How I Got Published in The Atlantic

#73

Post by nommm-nommm »

mike2477 wrote: post #26
pieterhg wrote: post #20

There's more to this story. I was the first person to be interviewed by this journalist (Michael Thomas @curious_founder). He approached me on Twitter to ask questions about digital nomad and remote work life (as I founded Nomad List and have been doing it for years). I told him it'd be great to see more honest depictions as most articles are heavily idealized making it sound all great, when it's not necessarily. It'…

So this isn't entirely true either.. Here's my take: What I did wrong - I didn't run the quotes by Pieter before publishing. I was on a tight deadline, and I simply skipped this step. That was a mistake, but not unethical. Journalists are not required to run quotes by their sources. I only quoted from what Pieter told me. Those who want to verify can hear the whole interview here -- https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B…

Your attempt at defending yourself actually makes you look much worse. Time to put your foot in your mouth and do some self reflection.

Re: The Art of Pitching: How I Got Published in The Atlantic

#74

Post by devoply »

jventura wrote: post #38
pieterhg wrote: post #20

There's more to this story. I was the first person to be interviewed by this journalist (Michael Thomas @curious_founder). He approached me on Twitter to ask questions about digital nomad and remote work life (as I founded Nomad List and have been doing it for years). I told him it'd be great to see more honest depictions as most articles are heavily idealized making it sound all great, when it's not necessarily. It'…

Bad journalism happens everywhere! Some years ago my father was interviewed for a local newspaper about the stadiums that Portugal had to build to host "Euro 2004", an European soccer cup. He said that he didn't like that the government decided to spend a lot of money on it, etc. A few days later the interview came out, and it was fully reversed, saying that he agreed with the stadiums and that it was a good opportun…

They write what they want to write, you're just a source. So yeah don't think they'll write your story for your benefit. You need to hire an expensive P/R agency if you want to do that. But on the other hand if you know their interests and your interests align with their, in that you can produce a click-baity idea for them then they might bite. But yeah be weary of the media. They have their own problems to solve. They don't care about you or yours.

Re: The Art of Pitching: How I Got Published in The Atlantic

#75

Post by Ayraa »

missn wrote: post #50
6stringmerc wrote: post #37

This is a great article if somebody has unlimited resources to pay rent, buy food, and focus on obtaining a basically temporal literary achievement; however, it offers no practical utility with respect to actually getting paid to write and earn a living by way of the craft, so...uhh...if you need a textbook fluff piece, here ya go.

Agree. The article had good points with the part about pitching especially helpful. I do get too that the focus of this piece is more on how to get into these publications. I do wish though that the author spoke a bit more on how he survived as a freelance writer. If you're a good enough writer with good ideas and you keep pitching persistently, you'll get traction soon enough. It's whether or not you're able to surv…

Have you taken a look at his main site? He's selling a course on growth marketing.

I'm pretty sure being a freelancer journalist is not his main gig. Rather, this article was supposed to demonstrate one of the ways he was able to 'growth hack' his way into publications.

Re: The Art of Pitching: How I Got Published in The Atlantic

#76

Post by forgotmypw »

coldtea wrote: post #72
forgotmypw wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I didn't run the quotes by Pieter before publishing. I was on a tight deadline, and I simply skipped this step. That was a mistake, but not unethical. Journalists are not required to run quotes by their sources. I only quoted from what Pieter told me. Isn't that called quoting out of context?

No, quoting out of context is when you omit parts to make a quote show someone saying something with different meaning than what he originally said. The journalist here may have or may haven't done that, but not because he haven't run the quote by the source. You can quote perfectly in context without running the quote by the source.

>quoting out of context is when you omit parts to make a quote show someone saying something with different meaning than what he originally said.

Isn't that exactly what happened?

>The journalist here may have or may haven't done that, but not because he haven't run the quote by the source.

Huh? Not?

>You can quote perfectly in context without running the quote by the source.

You can, but that's not what happened, is it?

Re: The Art of Pitching: How I Got Published in The Atlantic

#77

Post by danso »

forgotmypw wrote: post #76
coldtea wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, quoting out of context is when you omit parts to make a quote show someone saying something with different meaning than what he originally said. The journalist here may have or may haven't done that, but not because he haven't run the quote by the source. You can quote perfectly in context without running the quote by the source.

>quoting out of context is when you omit parts to make a quote show someone saying something with different meaning than what he originally said. Isn't that exactly what happened? >The journalist here may have or may haven't done that, but not because he haven't run the quote by the source. Huh? Not? >You can quote perfectly in context without running the quote by the source. You can, but that's not what happened, is…

No, taking a quote of context is not the same as not running a quote with the source prior to publication. The former is unethical, the second is an optional practice.

I dont't run quotes by sources when I know that I have recorded it correctly and when I feel certain of the speaker's intent and context.

Most photojournalists don't let the subjects see the photos prior to publication. Not just in the past days of film, when it would have been logistically difficult, but even today with digital cameras. Most subjects have strong opinions about what photos capture them nicely. But photographers generally believe that photos capture truth, at least in a limited technical sense.

edit: It's worth throwing in a hypothetical cases based on real quotes. Pretend these happened in a private interview that you have taped:

- Case 1: "Rarely is the question asked, is our children learning?" [0]

If you were not a journalist sympathetic to President Bush, you would print this quote ad verbatim (minus the stutter before "is"), because it fits a narrative that Bush is a doofus, even when speaking about our children's education. I think if you ran this by him, Bush would politely request that "is" be changed to "are". But including the quote verbatim isn't a distortion of the truth, it's literally what's on tape.

- Case 2: "It depends on what the meaning of is is" [1]

Here's a case where a neutral reporter might ask for clarification, because the reporter is genuinely confused. However, I think most reporters would run with this, because even in a much longer interview/deposition, this quote seems to succinctly sum up Clinton's general shady evasiveness. Not sure what President Clinton would ask for here, he might have found it amusing to add to his Slick Willy persona.

- Case 3: "Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know." [2]

I personally think that this is a brilliant quote, on its immediate face. But it's such a complicated phrase that it's possible that maybe Secretary Rumsfeld messed up a syllable in such a way that totally changed the meaning. It does him nor the reader no good to leave in what was literally said if it doesn't represent Rumsfeld's mindset, unless the story is specifically about Rumsfeld's tongue twisters, and this is an example of how he tripped up.

So if you have a tape of the person speaking, and you are certain what they said, literally, and what they meant in context, what exactly is the point of reading the quote to them pre-publication, except to bring clarity in the cases where you are unsure? And what threshold of doubt does it become unethical not to offer a reading to the interview subject? It's not a clear decision, thus, why it's an optional practice left to the discretion of the reporter and circumstances.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ej7ZEnjSeA

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiPe1OiKQuk

Re: The Art of Pitching: How I Got Published in The Atlantic

#78

Post by clhodapp »

forgotmypw wrote: post #76
coldtea wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, quoting out of context is when you omit parts to make a quote show someone saying something with different meaning than what he originally said. The journalist here may have or may haven't done that, but not because he haven't run the quote by the source. You can quote perfectly in context without running the quote by the source.

>quoting out of context is when you omit parts to make a quote show someone saying something with different meaning than what he originally said. Isn't that exactly what happened? >The journalist here may have or may haven't done that, but not because he haven't run the quote by the source. Huh? Not? >You can quote perfectly in context without running the quote by the source. You can, but that's not what happened, is…

I think the point is that the snippet you originally quoted isn't a description of quoting out of context (even though the article being discussed in this thread does seem to be an example of it).

Re: The Art of Pitching: How I Got Published in The Atlantic

#79

Post by missn »

Ayraa wrote: post #75
missn wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree. The article had good points with the part about pitching especially helpful. I do get too that the focus of this piece is more on how to get into these publications. I do wish though that the author spoke a bit more on how he survived as a freelance writer. If you're a good enough writer with good ideas and you keep pitching persistently, you'll get traction soon enough. It's whether or not you're able to surv…

Have you taken a look at his main site? He's selling a course on growth marketing. I'm pretty sure being a freelancer journalist is not his main gig. Rather, this article was supposed to demonstrate one of the ways he was able to 'growth hack' his way into publications.

Nope, I didn't see the rest of his site until after I commented. Make sense under that lens, getting published in those places do help a lot reputation-wise.

Re: The Art of Pitching: How I Got Published in The Atlantic

#80

Post by Nomentatus »

Like the article. Hey, an informative article, whoa...

Re the controversy over article one, it is astonishing what shitty reporters we humans are, almost to a person. Just astonishing. I don't exclude myself. Everyone thinks they're a great, accurate reporter so they think reporting well must be pretty easy. Wrong on both counts.

Post reply on HN