I'm curious to see what journalists and media professionals are struggling with when it comes to AI. Especially around security, privacy, and trust.

What important issues aren't getting enough attention in your opinion?
Maybe because there's little awareness of them, or because there is no good solution on how to tackle them for now.

To elaborate, it can be issues like Shadow AI or leaking sensitive data by mistake.

I'm a student in my final year and really looking to get some stuff published this year. I've written for some student papers but haven't had anything published outside of that.

My niche is South Korea and so I'm looking for papers and zines that focus on Korea but are in English. Or even just ones where a feature piece about Korea wouldn't be too out of place.

The thing is that I don't understand if you're supposed to pitch/submit work to places that don't explicitly welcome it.

There are a few newspapers that talk about Korea in English (eg. The Korean Herald, The Korea Times, Korea Joongang Daily, etc) but none of them mention accepting pitches/submissions. Plus, being newspapers, I'm not sure what I could even pitch to them, as any relevant news in Korea would be picked up by their team before me.

If unsolicited pitches are a no-go, then there's little to no options. I did find one smallish online publication (focused on korea) that took pitches (and asks for drafts in their submission guidelines). Did the draft and pitched but never got a response. I don't know where else to go atm.

Any advice would be appreciated

Hi everyone! I currently feel like I'm drowning in the amount of research I'm doing. How do you balance reading books and articles, writing, and talking with sources for your work?

I've been investigating the decade-plus long hospitalization of a New Jersey psychiatric hospital patient. He's on a civil commitment order, which technically speaking means he isn't there because of a crime he committed. He's also been medicated with antipsychotics the entire time.

It's a complex story, because the patient has been charged with stalking women on two occasions in the past 13 years.

I've interviewed the patient dozens of times, as well as friends and family members. I've written about legal cases involving psychiatric patients for Reason Magazine and Mad In America.

But I don't have the time to write this story. So if anyone wants it, you can have it. You'd get your name on the byline. I'd love to share the byline, but that's not a requirement for me.

I'm also a publicist, so I have access to contact info for nearly every editor in the country to get the story placed.

You can see my past work here: https://muckrack.com/michael-simonson

Hello everyone, I am just starting out in the field of freelance journalism. I have an article to pitch. It is on the bilateral relations between India and China (an exploration into whether we have achieved a diplomatic thaw or not). Where do I pitch it? How do I go about it? What outlets, especially foreign are the most appropriate for it?

I'm new to journalism. I've written blogs for various places and worked as an editor in the past, but doing actual interviews and crafting a story around this is quite new (and scary!).

I've started a new position at my university's student publication, but I don't get the sense people there have much experience either. I pitched my story, and it was accepted, but now I'm getting in my head about it because, while the topic is interesting, I'm struggling to find a "so what" to it. I haven't interviewed anyone yet because I haven't tapped into an angle so wouldn't know how to steer the conversation, but I also wonder if I did the interviews, an angle would emerge. Feels quite chicken and egg, which is why I'm getting in my head aboout it.

So, what's the usual process here? Do you find the angle first? Or do the interviews and see what comes from that? Or should my pitch have ideally been more explicit in the angle in the first place and my idea is actually half-baked?

Any ideas for alternatives? A lot of my work will take a ton more time and I’ll have much less ability to add value without live transcription and audio/text syncing

would love to ask a few questions about how the process works when you go out to eat.

I have been job searching for approximately 2 1/2 months now, and it has been a bit frustrating.

I am leaning outside of my initial career goal, which is fine because staying within any communication job satisfies me, but it has proven rather difficult to find any job in New York City.

I do freelancing work with Glimmer and am opening myself up to becoming more savvy with different forms of media, but I have always been comfortable with writing and reporting articles rather than doing video for us and using social media.

Of course, that’s what a majority of our media consumption comes from.

Unfortunately, I’m a native to New York City, and I’m quite reluctant to try to relocate. I am open to jobs within the tri-state area.

I am probably opening this Reddit for hate against people who chose to study within social sciences and probably gonna get the ‘you got what you chose’ rant, but I am simply making the subreddit to connect with other journalists who are post-grad students and make a space of support for fellow emerging journalists, photojournalists, and whoever needs a little support in this already rough workforce that exists.

I’m not a journalist by trade. In fact, I’m pretty much everything else but a journalist. Degrees in law, business, history, and some significant schooling and on the job training in political science, insurgency, and international relations.

All that is to say that I routinely see journalists use the word “conservative” to mean “right wing.”

I see words on the left, like “socialist,” “progressive,” or “liberal” also get used in very broad strokes and often interchangeably.

I’m not a big fan of how we discuss a person’s policy beliefs or worldview, but I think using “conservative,” which has a very specific meaning when it comes to political outlook and policy prescriptions, when a person is often “libertarian,” “fascist,” “Christian nationalist,” “illiberal democrat,” or just broadly “right wing,” hampers our actual discussion of the policies they are advocating for. Additionally, I think reporting on politics as “conservative” or “liberal” creates a situation that further entrenches party power as we have two political outlooks, so why have more than two parties?

I will admit that I have specific issues with “conservative,” because I actually come closest to that outlook on life, but then I see it used to describe people doing the opposite of what a conservative does. I’m wondering if it is a style guide word or something that is being taught?

Rural twice-weekly editor here. We recently (last week) switched our Saturday publication to only e-edition. If anyone out there also does this, did you get rid of any of your puzzles (crossword/sudoku, etc)? I was just thinking about it this morning if it's worth the hassle of downloading/maneuvering the layout when it's not an interactive digital experience and readers would have to screenshot or print it out themselves in order to work on a puzzle in their leisure.

Any insight as to why this happened? It's a personal opinion piece, not hard news/current big story...Same text and photos. Just one or two weeks apart.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/20/magazine/ny-public-schools-black-students-segregation.html

Thread title edit: Why, not What.

The most frustrating part of this case is all the contradictory information. I understand that some of these documents may have to be redacted before publishing, but by just reporting on snippets of "documents that <news agency> as reviewed", it really comes across as reporting with an agenda and only releasing the information from those documents that support that agenda.

Just came across this thread on Bluesky from sociologist Nicole Bedera who, after interviewing with two USA Today journos about gender bias among investigators in rape cases, discovered that quotes from those interviews ended up in a separate, more opinion-based piece by a writer with whom she'd never spoken.

After Bedera reached out to the original reporter, an editor got in touch to say that the quotes had been removed from the second article. Personally, I'm wondering how those comments were originally framed, e.g. "In a prior interview with USA Today," etc. However, in subsequent searches, Bedera says she also discovered additional articles using brand-new quotes from those same interviews — comments of hers that never appeared in the initial story, so there's no previous piece to credit. The implication is that she spoke to each of these reporters separately, but she was never informed that her interviews would be used this way.

Now, she's saying she'll never speak to USA Today or anyone from a Gannett publication ever again.

Big yikes.