Public Philosophy Editors on Pitching

Earlier this year, we asked for your questions for editors of public philosophy venues. We are thrilled to publish the first of three parts sharing their answers to your questions. Part one addresses your queries about pitching.

We apologize for the delay, but Sam Dresser of Aeon was unable to participate. We asked Sam Haselby of Aeon to fill in, and he was kind enough to agree. So the editors who participated are (in alphabetical order):

Anastasia Berg, The Point

Peter Catapano, The Stone, The New York Times

Sam Haselby, Aeon

Matt Lord, Boston Review

Adriel M. Trott, Blog of the APA

Look for parts two and three next week.

* * *

What makes for a good pitch?

Anastasia Berg, The Point:

A pitch is meant to give us a sense of the piece, a good pitch does that well. So the question is really what’s important to convey about a prospective piece: at best, there’s an argument or, perhaps a little more minimally, a point that the author is trying to get across. It’s not just about something (“I want to write about Voltaire and the election.”), but is making some sort of claim (“Reading Voltaire can help us appreciate an election dynamic we’d otherwise remain blind to”). Then in addition to judging whether the claim is banal or original, weak or persuasive, we ask whether it makes contact with recognizable concerns of the reader. Will the writer be able to convince a reader that they should care about what they’re writing about?

Important to also mention that writers are always welcome to send us full drafts, as many do.

Peter Catapano, The New York Times:

In general, the most important elements are the most obvious ones: send the pitch in the body of an email. Have it be polite, clearly written, as concise as possible, with a discernable subject line. Be careful not to make errors in spelling or grammar, and get the editor’s name right. Don’t be too self-important about your work, and be aware of the fact that the editor in some cases must read and consider 20, 50, or even 100 pitches in a week.

I know most editors like pitches. I don’t mind them, but I don’t find them very helpful on their own. I personally prefer to see completed drafts, with a brief description of the attached draft in the body of an email; the only thing a pitch tells me is whether you have a viable idea. Your idea may be great, but if you can’t execute it well, it matters little. We work “on spec” so it’s entirely possible that we can invite a piece based on your pitch and still reject the final product. In most cases, reading and a responding to a pitch just creates another step in the process and takes more time.

That said, I do understand that writers also have limited time and in some cases pitches are the most efficient way to get the ball rolling. Aside from the above suggestions, you may want to list previous publications, if you have them. While they are by no means required, they can sometimes be helpful guides to a writer’s work.

Just one other warning: It’s important to read the section you are pitching to and do not pitch pieces too similar to any that have already run.

Also, speaking personally: please don’t be offended if I do not respond quickly, I try to keep up but don’t always succeed. It is simply not possible to reply to everyone in a timely manner.

Sam Haselby, Aeon:

Clarity and a sense of excitement or why the piece matters. The latter is not at all the same as a news hook, which at Aeon we don’t care about.

Matt Lord, Boston Review:

A good pitch says what you’re thinking; it doesn’t just assert that you have something to say. A couple of sentences are rarely enough, especially when you’re pitching cold. Describe what you want to do in a few substantial paragraphs; save your clips and credentials for a line or two. “I’m a professor at Rutgers, and I’d like to write about free speech in the fallout of the Sen. Tom Cotton op-ed in the New York Times” isn’t a pitch: it’s a confession. We’re interested in your ideas—don’t be shy about sharing them!

Beyond making a definite claim—to test whether you’ve got one, imagine writing the dek for your piece, the short summary just below the headline—you should also convey how you’ll develop it. A piece of writing is more than its propositional content. How will you fill the space? Don’t submit an outline, but you’ll probably write a better pitch if you first imagine what shape your essay will take, how it will unfold, what various things it will do. An essay is something that happens to an idea, so try to say what might happen. (If you’re submitting a completed draft—not just a prospectus—make sure to include a précis. It’s easier to find time to read a couple hundred words than several thousand; lowering the cost of entry can only work to your advantage.)

Adriel M. Trott, Blog of the APA:

A good pitch makes a philosophically interesting claim that appeals to a wider audience. It can put a well-known philosophical idea to work in a novel way, or it can be a new philosophical idea that is especially relevant to discussing a particular situation. The Women in Philosophy series looks for pitches in three distinct areas:

• Women in the history of philosophy (either historical women philosophers or posts about women and gender in the history of philosophy)
• Issues of concern to women in the field of philosophy
• Issues of concern to women in the wider world addressed from a philosophical perspective.

We turn away pitches that are not about women and / or gender, that are not philosophically sophisticated (for example, that present a position as widely accepted or assumed across the board without support), that are pitched too much as an academic or scholarly piece, or that repeat the thesis of previous posts in the series.

How important is it to have a particular audience in mind when making 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)? — Kian Mintz-Woo

Anastasia Berg, The Point:

A writer should always bear in mind who they’re writing for. In our case a question we ask often is, Would this really provoke our readers to look at something differently, consider something they haven’t before, shed new light on a matter of concern for them, or would it just confirm whatever opinions and prejudices they already have with, say, the aid of some theoretical apparatus? Another thing to keep in mind is whether the writer wants to reach a non-specialized audience and if so, are they doing what they need to hold that kind of audience’s attention—and this does not just mean translating the technical terms into more familiar ones, or doing more explaining. Our audience doesn’t come to us for very rudimentary philosophy lectures but for sophisticated, unpredictable lines of thought that make contact with their lives and interests.

Generally speaking, we have a good grasp of our own audience and what we’re hoping to give them, so the writer does not need to tell us who they think would be interested in it, unless they have reason to think there’s something we’re missing—perhaps just how popular a certain phenomenon is.

Peter Catapano, The New York Times:

Since The Stone is a philosophy-focused project, I think it’s sort of built into the process, so I don’t think extra information about that is needed in a pitch, and unless you are a really good data scientist, the type of reader who will like your work is anyone’s guess. Ideally, your article will appeal to your intended audience as well as readers who would not be naturally interested in it. (It’s easy to preach to the converted, or make believers swoon; but can you interest a baseball fan in Wittgenstein?) I never assume I actually know what an “audience” is, but I guess it is an informed but general audience who may or may not be inherently interested in philosophy or literature. That said, having an audience in mind can be considered legitimately helpful if it helps the writer focus their piece. Ultimately, The Stone is part of a news organization with the broadest possible readership, and it’s always helpful to keep that in mind.

Sam Haselby, Aeon:

One of the most important things to understand about Aeon is that about 55 percent of our readers are outside the United States. So we do not publish in response to the US news cycle and rarely on just US politics.

Matt Lord, Boston Review:

Certainly some of it’s implicit. If you’re strongly committed to writing a piece that sounds like it could only have been written for a particular outlet, don’t pitch it everywhere—or be prepared to make adjustments. As for what to include in the pitch after you’ve settled on a venue: rather than speculate who might be interested, consider drawing a connection to other essays the publication has recently published. It’s always a good idea to show some familiarity with the venue’s publication history. Pointing out a continuity in focus or approach can help make the case that your essay is a good fit, or draw attention to a feature of the conversation only apparent when you think about several pieces as a whole.

Adriel M. Trott, Blog of the APA:

The Women in Philosophy series is pitched to women in the field of philosophy as well as to women in the world in general. We assume this readership in considering all posts, even those that are about issues affecting women in the field of philosophy.

Do you prefer pitches that outline the whole article (which may be a tad boring), or pitches which give a glimpse at the authors writing style and introduce the topic, but which may not be that detailed? If the answer is “a bit of both,” how does one balance these elements? — Rachel Handley

Anastasia Berg, The Point:

I want to have enough information to know if I want to look at a full draft. If the claim is outlandish, a glimpse into how the author intends to make it would be helpful. If the author intends to write about their own experience, or from the first person perspective, then giving us a sense of what that would involve and a taste of their voice would be helpful, too.

But, generally speaking, if the pitch shows any promise we’ll tell the writer we’d be happy to look at a complete draft and take it from there. We pride ourselves on an involved and rigorous editorial process, which allows us to take risks and cultivate rising writers. So I wouldn’t sweat the pitch, if we want to hear more—if we want an outline, details, etc.—we’ll ask.

Peter Catapano, The New York Times:

Please see above. A very short pitch with an attached draft is what I prefer to receive and consider. It gives me everything I need to see to make a decision in one correspondence.

Sam Haselby, Aeon:

A bit of both—a simple, direct opener that states the argument followed by 200 words outlining how it will be made.

Matt Lord, Boston Review:

See my answer above?

Adriel M. Trott, Blog of the APA:

The Women in Philosophy series is happy to accept outlines or abstracts as pitches. We want to see that an author has something worth saying and can develop the idea for about 2000 words. As for the writing style, we definitely try to edit out “academic-speak” including academic sentence construction. We like posts to use active subject verb constructions, and to aim to be as pithy as possible, but we usually don’t reject pitches for these issues.

Is it bad etiquette to submit two pitches—or articles—at the same time? — Daniel Moises Tippens

Anastasia Berg, The Point:

Nope.

Peter Catapano, The New York Times:

If you mean to submit two different pieces to the same publication at once, then I’d say yes. If an editor is putting time into considering a piece you’ve submitted then gets another before making a decision on the first, I do assume that editor will be ticked. I would.

If you mean submitting two different pieces to two different publications at the same time, that is fine, provided the pieces don’t substantially overlap or make it appear that you are undertaking a public relations campaign for a book, rather than contributing relevant commentary for each publication’s audience.

Sam Haselby, Aeon:

No. It’s better.

Matt Lord, Boston Review:

Not necessarily, but it’s probably best if there’s a good reason for it.

Adriel Trott, Blog of the APA:

Not to the Women in Philosophy series editors! Pitch away! But it could become a problem if you keep pitching ideas that we don’t accept and we find ourselves doing a lot of pitch-development for you.

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. — Helen De Cruz

Anastasia Berg, The Point:

Very time-sensitive pieces are not usually our lane; especially in print, even if an essay addresses the concerns of a particular time, which often essays do, we aim for a certain untimeliness: the sort of essay that a reader would enjoy reading at months and years after its publication date. But if you haven’t received a reply from someone in a timely manner, I’d recommend politely nudging the editor or contacting another.

Peter Catapano, The New York Times:

This is a case where a very quick pitch would be expedient. Because writers tend to descend on news events very quickly, it’s likely we’d have a piece already in hand on that topic. If the writer needs to know on short notice because of urgency, I think it’s fine to ask for a response within 12 or 24 hours and/or to give the editor a heads up that if you don’t hear back within a certain time frame you plan to send it elsewhere. When things are moving fast, everyone understands that the usual rules of etiquette do not apply, as long as you keep everyone apprised of the status of the piece.

Sam Haselby, Aeon:

Don’t pitch news cycle pieces to Aeon. We can’t move that fast and it’s a waste of your time.

Matt Lord, Boston Review:

Be explicit about why you consider the pitch urgent, but be mindful that everyone in media is hypersensitive to the news cycle. Editors probably don’t need to be told something is time-sensitive; in most cases it will be obvious. (There are exceptions, of course, especially if the news has gotten little coverage.) It is better to explain the urgency than merely to assert it.

Keep in mind, though, that an editor may disagree with your claim of exigency, propose a different timeline, or imagine a different sort of intervention. The quickest take is not always best, and many readers will still be interested after major outlets have moved on. Your essay might even do better—get more views, take fuller stock of a debate, reach more of the audience you want—after the hot take artists have said their piece. Public philosophy doesn’t always mean fast philosophy, and sometimes it’s not so bad for the Owl of Minerva to fly a little late.

As for good form, it’s true that simultaneous submissions (submitting the same piece to multiple outlets) can lead to awkward situations—especially when you aren’t upfront about it. Rather than play the field, consider this strategy. Pick your top choice and give an explicit deadline: “It would be great if you could let me know if you’re interested by X time and date. Since I’d like to get this out quickly, I’ll submit the pitch elsewhere if I haven’t heard from you by then.” (Be reasonable about the value you choose for X: give a few hours, at least.) If you do submit simultaneously, you should probably say you’re doing so. That way you don’t risk burning a bridge with a publication that takes time to discuss your pitch and to express interest only to learn you’ve already committed the piece elsewhere.

Adriel M. Trott, Blog of the APA:

This question is tough because the Women in Philosophy series tries to have our posts planned out in advance for several months. On occasion, we have someone unable to meet a deadline so it becomes possible to post a really timely post within a couple days. We try to put a call out on social media at those times. The general APA Blog can often accommodate more timely turn-arounds than the Women in Philosophy series can.