The APA Committee on Public Philosophy is partnering with the Blog of the APA to publish a series on how to do public philosophy.
For its inaugural effort, we have invited editors from some of the most prominent publications of public philosophy to answer your questions. The editors are (in alphabetical order):
Anastasia Berg, The Point
Peter Catapano, The Stone, The New York Times
Sam Dresser, Aeon
Matt Lord, Boston Review
Adriel Trott, Blog of the APA
Do you have a question for the editors? (Examples include: What constitutes a good pitch? Can I pitch to more than one place at the same time?) If so, please leave the question in comments below or email us at davidjohnson@apaonline.org by Monday, August 17.
Reminder: If you leave a comment below, please include your first and last name. If you wish to remain anonymous, please email your question and state this preference, and we will accommodate it.
The editors will be given three weeks to answer your questions. We will then publish your questions and their answers.
Send us your questions!
Helen De Cruz
Helen De Cruz holds the Danforth Chair in the Humanities at Saint Louis University. Her areas of specialization are philosophy of cognitive science and philosophy of religion. Recent publications include De Cruz, De Smedt & Schwitzgebel (Eds.) Philosophy through science fiction stories (Bloomsbury, 2021) and De Cruz (Ed. and illustrator). Philosophy illustrated. 42 thought experiments to broaden your mind (Oxford University Press, forthcoming).
David V. Johnson
David V. Johnson is the public philosophy editor of the APA Blog and deputy editor of Stanford Social Innovation Review. He is a former philosophy professor turned journalist with more than a decade of experience as an editor and writer. Previously, he was senior opinion editor at Al Jazeera America, where he edited the op-ed section of the news channel’s website. Earlier in his career, he served as online editor at Boston Review and research editor at San Francisco magazine the year it won a National Magazine Award for general excellence. He has written for The New York Times, USA Today, The New Republic, Bookforum, Aeon, Dissent, and The Baffler, among other publications.
Thank you to the Editors for doing this! I’d like to ask a question as someone who has written quite a bit of public philosophy (e.g., Aeon, Guardian) but little work that was time-sensitive. What do you advise for authors who have a time-sensitive piece of public philosophy that’s relevant for the current news cycle. Often there’s a standard message that you are free to pitch elsewhere within 3-5 business days, but by then the news cycle has moved on, and to my understanding it is not good form to pitch simultaneously. How do I increase my chances of placing a piece while it’s topical?
I already know the venues I want to pitch to. Other than this, how do I avoid radio silence while waiting to hear from a decision?
What are some common mistakes that philosophers make in writing for a public audience?
What’s the percentage of pieces you commission versus pieces you get from cold pitches? What is your rejection rate on pitches? Do factors other than your judgment of the quality of pitches affect your decision to accept, like prestige of individual/institution, acquaintance with the person pitching, news cycle, etc.?
I’ve heard from editors it’s important to cultivate a good professional relationship with an editor. What are the dos and dont’s of public philosophy writing? What are some obvious errors beginning public philosophers make?
I’d love to see some examples of successful pitches by philosophers, which we could model on. It’s hard to know even what a good pitch looks like or whether the several I’ve written are standard or quirky.
Thank you for doing this! What are the challenges unique to the more theoretical rather than practical areas of philosophy when it comes to writing public philosophy? Clearly, political philosophers, ethicists and social epistemologists have plenty to say about current affairs, but how possible is it for metaphysicians or philosophers of mind, language or logic to write successful public philosophy?
What are you doing to ensure minority representation in your publications?
Many of these publishing forums are very competitive. I’d bet that most pitches or submissions from philosophers probably get no response, especially from people who do not already have connections in these forums. So my very broad questions are these:
how does one get an “in” to publish in these forums?
what are more successful pitches like?
is it typically better to submit a pitch, or to submit a whole draft, with a willingness to revise, or both?
finally, what’s a good list of characteristics of better writing for these types of forums?
obviously, there are many important ethical and philosophical issues but, by and large, editors and journalists usually don’t turn to philosophers for comment or writings on those topics. What can we do to change that?
Thank you!
Thank you so much for your time–and to the organizers for this opportunity.
How important is it to have a particular audience in mind when making the pitches? Should the pitch include comments about who might be interested or is that implicit in the readership of the venue (let’s assume that when pitching you do have a good understanding of that readership)?
Similarly, when writing is it important to have particular readers in mind? If so, what ways might public philosophers better consider some types of readers, or are there ways that you see public philosophy pieces fall short on this metric?