Behind the scenes: Selection of Pitches

By Ankita Anand


It’s pouring pitches!

A lot of people out there seem to share our mission because our widely circulated calls for pitches (Öffnet in neuem Fenster) got us around 800 entries! With infinite resources, we would have loved  nothing more than to publish all of them. But bearing in mind our  modest resources we had to grit our teeth and choose only a bunch.

We had to find an effective strategy to go through all the pitches,  and respond to everyone within a certain period. Our editor-in-chief  Tina Lee and engagement editor Zahra Salah Uddin took one for the team  to create an initial shortlist of around 200 pitches. We still faced the  trepidation of choosing the final 30-35. The entire editorial board  including Mercy Abang, Purple Romero, Wafaa Albadry and myself, went  through these pitches divided under categories like environment, labor,  human rights/conflict, minorities/racism/inequality/, sexism/patriarchy,  LQBTQIA, health/Covid, mental health, disability, media, technology,  etc. Many stories fit into more than one category, and some were outside  any of these themes. These sections were just reference points for us  to ensure we were picking the under-reported stories we had aimed to.

Decisions, decisions

Each editor scored the stories on a scale of 1 to 10. A story’s  cumulative score determined whether it made it to the final selection or  not. We marked each pitch on the basis of whether it had cross-border  relevance, whether the journalist was the right person to tell the story  (how knowledgeable they are about the subject, if they are based in the  country where they will report the issue on, how aware they are of the  implications, ethical considerations, impact of the story on the  community they will be writing about, etc.), and if the story had the  potential to change the narrative/bias/status quo. It was also important  for us that the protagonists or main characters should be represented  with agency and dignity. We were trying to choose stories where we could  verify/triangulate the allegations made, the facts quoted, and the  sources employed.

Sometimes we would come across a strong story from a journalist with a  gender/region/language, etc., well-represented in the global,  mainstream media. But we would prioritize it over another brilliant  story that hadn’t seen the light of day simply because of the  communities it represented, the region it came from, or the dominant  narrative it challenged. We would vote for a cross-border story where  the journalist came from one of the regions involved, rather than one  reported by someone from a foreign country. If a journalist writing in  English was collaborating with someone who usually writes in the first  language of their region, it was an exciting option for us. It chimed in  with our principle of “collaboration over competition”, and of not  using the local journalist only as a “fixer (Öffnet in neuem Fenster)”.

Thou shalt not exploit

We had these clear selection criteria as our guiding principles. But  we still had complex choices that we debated during our weekly remote  editorial meetings. For example, what if a man from an under-represented  region has an under-reported story on women? We then tried to ensure  that if we commission the story it should mainly be shaped by the voices  of the women themselves.

There were some stories we loved but because of their broad scope or  big team we could not commission them. We did not wish to encourage  exploitative practices and have someone do a mammoth job for us for 500  Take a euros. We also did not want team members to split the money, but to pay  each journalist on the team equally.

A community instead of a roster

Our intent was not to penalize a story for being ambitious but simply  for them to get their right due. This is one of the reasons we invited  all those who pitched to remain part of a community that would have  access to free training, a collaborative platform, and a regular  exchange of information about resources and opportunities. We wish to  see each of those stories published, for each would do its part in  “unbiasing” the news.

Overall, the process had its challenges and opportunities for  improvement, as with any big experiment. But because our editorial team  had collaborated on a joint editorial manifesto (Öffnet in neuem Fenster) and judging criteria, it clarified which pitches most perfectly matched  the kind of stories we most wanted to tell. The fact that team members  from such different professional and cultural backgrounds were excited  about many of the same stories showed that our process of collaboration  was at least partially a success.

But selection of the pitches is the just the beginning! We will keep  sharing our process as we move along through the next stages of getting  the stories out and trying to amplify under-reported topics to a global  audience.

Ankita Anand is a regional editor from India at Unbias the News (Öffnet in neuem Fenster). She is a cross-border journalist covering environmental and rural stories with an international dimension.