In October 2003, writer Mat Honan cold-pitched Salon a query centering around a newly-passed piece of anti-spam legislation that, he argued in his pitch, would wind up worsening the spam situation rather than remedying it. Running counter to coverage hailing the legislation as a boon to email users, Honan’s well-researched, forcefully-argued query piqued the interest of Andrew Leonard, Salon’s then-technology editor (now a senior technology writer there). We got their recollections of the query, and break down the pitch to show how Honan’s unique angle led to an assignment.
What the Writer Did
Mat Honan: I had covered [the Burns-Wyden anti-spam bill, a.k.a. the “Can-Spam Act,”] for Tech Daily (National Journal) previously, and had strong feelings that it was going to be an ineffective piece of legislation. When it passed, I couldn’t believe a lot of the coverage I was seeing in newspapers that really gave the bill more credit than it deserved. I didn’t think the opposing viewpoint — that the act was going to be ineffective — was getting enough traction. Salon has a long history of covering both technology and politics, and they tend to run a lot of pieces where someone argues for a particular viewpoint. [The piece I was proposing] really seemed like a natural fit.
Also on Mediabistro
I was familiar with Salon, since I’d been reading it for years and had always loved it (and still do). But before I pitched I looked around to find out who edited the technology section. I more or less just looked at the “About ” page and found the technology editor (Andrew Leonard). I was familiar with his byline, of course, but prior to that I didn’t realize he edited the section.
This was my first pitch to Salon, and I pitched Andrew blindly. So, I felt I really needed to back up my pitch. I’d long meant to [pitch Salon], but never pulled the trigger. But like I said, I thought that the CAN-SPAM story was a really great fit for Salon. When I was inspired to pitch it, the first thing I thought was that it would make a great Salon story, and I’d be crazy not to take the chance to send it to them.
I [got] a response from Andrew — I don’t recall when, exactly, but it was pretty quick. He accepted the pitch, gave me a deadline, told me about payment, and that was it. As I recall, I filed within a few days of pitching. The piece ran a week later. Andrew turned out to be a great guy and we wound up working together again several times after [this]. I wrote several other stories, some that I pitched, and some that Andrew assigned me. I have not been doing as much for them lately as I once did, and this kind of reminds me I should really shoot him an idea or two again sometime soon.
Why the Editor Bit
Andrew Leonard: Spam is a topic of enduring reader interest, and Mat offered a contrarian take, which was that a highly touted law aimed at stopping spam would actually create more of it. As an editor, I always found contrarian pitches more attractive than conventional wisdom pitches. That may have been just a personal predilection (although it was also in line with Salon’s general attitude), but I think in general, when pitching a story, the best way to catch an editor’s attention is to have an angle that is different than what the reader or editor might expect.
Mat’s approach caught my attention because it had a clear argument, got right to the point, provided clips, and was written cleanly. The vast majority of pitches stunningly do not manage to fill all those categories. For a writer to understand the publication he or she is pitching to builds confidence in the editor. A list of potential sources never really meant that much to me. By reviewing [Mat’s] clips, I could tell he would do the legwork. That’s actually the easiest part. Far more important is writing style and a good argument.
The Pitch
| Hi Andrew, The Burns-Wyden anti-spam bill, or the so-called “Can-Spam Act,” passed overwhelmingly in the Senate last week (1) and was heralded on front pages across the country as an anti-spam victory. “Senate Votes 97-0 To Restrict E-Mail Ads,” the Washington Post announced. “Senate Votes to Crack Down on Some Spam,” proclaimed The New York Times. “Senate OKs do-not-spam plan,” bellowed the [San Jose] Mercury News in giant Hearst-sized type across the top of the page. (2) There’s just one problem: Burns-Wyden will make the scourge of spam worse and effectively legitimize the practice of sending unsolicited bulk email. (3) By eliminating a consumer’s right to sue, over-riding state legislation, and providing for truthful-yet-unwanted email from so-called legitimate spammers, Burns-Wyden will create a flood of spam, all of it legal. What’s more, the “do-not-spam” list tacked onto the bill at the last moment is utterly unenforceable, and worse, could be used by spammers to harvest valid email addresses. (4) Can spam? More like spam can. (5) I’d like to write a piece arguing Burns-Wyden is bad for consumers; is indeed worse than no law at all. (6) I’ll get quotes from people on the frontlines. (7) Attorneys who have won significant court cases against spammers (such as Pete “The Spammer Hammer” Wellborn and/or David Kramer), FTC representatives (who have called the “do-not-spam” list unenforceable), and email service providers. I’ll also contact representatives from California — where the nation’s first anti-spam legislation with real teeth was set to take effect on January 1 — and other states with anti-spam laws already on the books. (8) My articles have appeared in numerous publications, including Mother Jones, The National Journal’s Technology Daily, MacWorld, CNN.com, Online Journalism Review, The San Francisco Bay Guardian, and Bankrate.com, to name a few. I’ve worked as a regular technology columnist for the New York Sun, and am currently a regular Silicon Valley contributor for The National Journal’s Tech Daily. (9) I’ve pasted two clips below. The first is a piece from a spam roundtable at ISPCON in Santa Clara last week, (10) straight up reporting. The second is a more stylistic piece on (now ubiquitous) text ads, or micro ads, that I wrote for Online Journalism Review a couple of years back. (11) Best, |
Key Components of the Pitch
(1) By making the “last week” reference early in the pitch, the writer immediately conveys to the editor that the subject he’s discussing is of the moment. Back to pitch
(2) Citing the various examples of other outlets’ coverage of the law not only helps the writer frame his argument, but is a way of showing the editor that he is up on how his subject is being covered elsewhere in the media, and not writing his pitch in a vacuum. Back to pitch
(3) The writer succinctly articulates the conflict he seeks to highlight, and offers a definitive assessment of the problem. Back to pitch
(4) If you’re going to argue against popular/majority opinion as the crux of a story idea, backing yourself up is crucial. Here, the writer illustrates exactly why his assessment runs counter to that of others. Back to pitch
(5) Here, the writer’s earned the right to be witty and engage in a bit of wordplay, since he’s effectively set up his argument and captured the reader’s attention. Be sparing with humor like this, and only chance it if you’re confident you’ve already stated your story idea clearly and convincingly. Back to pitch
(6) The writer succeeds in pushing the story forward and indicating his confidence in his idea by not merely arguing against something, but also arguing for something — in this case, the absence or elimination of this legislation. Back to pitch
(7) Referring to potential sources this way emphasizes the rhetorical battle between Honan and those who support the legislation. Playing up the element of conflict heightens the excitement factor for the reader. Back to pitch
(8) When citing whom you’ll speak with for a prospective piece, take this writer’s cue and mention those on all sides of the issue. It’ll assure the editor/reader that your approach to the piece, even if it’s opinion-driven, will be balanced. Back to pitch
(9) Mentioning where you’ve published related standalone articles helps show you’re versed in the subject at hand, but being able to say you’re a regular contributor on such topics is even better. Back to pitch
(10) Including a clip relevant to your pitch published as recently as the previous week shows you’re consistently working within your designated area of expertise. Back to pitch
(11) Using an older clip is OK, since the writer has included a newer one, and using both to illustrate the range of his coverage (“straight-up reporting” versus “more stylistic”). Back to pitch
