Journalist reveals inside secrets
As a highly successful journalist, I get asked questions about my profession a lot. How do you write so well? I don’t know; I guess I just have so much natural talent that I never needed to learn any writing skills. How is your vocabulary so vocabulent? Well, it’s mainly just being wordful and believish, with added convictiveness. Basically, you just need to be fact. Further, you must put these words well together to make sentence for grammatical reading good. People also ask how I’m so humble as a published writer. The trick is to just not brag. I always deliver top-notch work, but I never point that out. No need to hog the spotlight. (Seriously, get out. It’s my turn.) Humility is key. But there’s one question that my readers ask most, and it’s what I want to talk about today: What’s the process for writing and publishing an article?
Now, I must admit, I was a bit annoyed when that question didn’t involve any of my great achievements or award-worthy work, but nevertheless, I still wanted to answer it because it offers me a platform to air a few grievances. The process of publishing journalism isn’t as fun and enjoyable as you might imagine. An article starts as the germ of an idea, but as soon as it gets pitched, things get chaotic. You need to brace yourself for the emotional roller coaster that is approvals and rejections, edits and refinements, and parting with puns you thought were really funny.
If your pitch gets accepted, you’ll need to get writing. Or, alternatively, you could wait. Yeah, I know you think you should just get started, but what’s the rush? Why don’t you go do something fun instead? Netflix alone has thousands of titles to choose from. Putting something off never hurt anyone, right? Anyway, after a bit of procrastination, you’ll want to check the time. Now you should panic. You’ve written nothing and your article is scheduled for peer-editing in thirty minutes. So start typing. HAMMER THOSE KEYS!
I want to preface the peer-editing process by saying the following: Heeeeey, guys. How are you? Having a good semester? Cool hoodie! Uh, I got you guys Target gift cards, and I- I read your articles. Uh, they all seem great… So, who here is going to look at mine? Oh, okay, cool. Yeah. Fun. Um, take this cookie. Yeah, great. Oh, and, uh, here’s some money. Yeah. So, as you can probably tell, peer-edits can be complicated. Typically involving bribes, blackmail, and possible aquatic warfare (don’t ask), anything goes during a peer-editing session.
After your fellow journalists tear apart your article and destroy your ego, you’ll move on to the next stage of the writing process: annoying the board. Begin by asking for an extension because you procrastinate. Let’s be honest, you know you’ll put off writing the article, so just ask for the extension now. Your main goal is to exasperate the board to the point of submission. You want to make it a hellish process for everyone concerned. They should never want to amend one of your pieces again by the time you’re through. Go around the table making them justify every suggested change in excruciating detail, and, when all else fails, throw a tantrum. I’ve only had to do this five or six times, but it’s definitely effective.
Once all that is done, there’s just one more thing you need to do before your article is ready for publication: it needs a graphic, so you’ll have to coordinate with an artist. This can be really frustrating, since artists are sensitive egomaniacs who are totally crazy and inflexible (not you, Brett; you’re great). Here, patient social skills and good relationship building with a creative partner are important. But it’s almost impossible because artists hog all the glory; most people only look at the pictures anyway! They don’t even read your article! I bet not even Brett is reading this. ARE YOU, BRETT?! Well, if you are, I got you a Target card.