Free pitches! Free pitches here!
Alexandra Cardinale wants you to take her ideas
When I first discovered Case by Case, a newsletter by Alexandra Cardinale and Kate Redding, I was confused. Each issue was a pitch for a story that sounded great. Editors would love these—so surely, they’d been pitched and published. Were they examples of pitches that already worked?
Nope. Case by Case is all about fresh ideas they hope other writers will use. But they’re also scrupulously analyzed for their potential. Alexandra and Kate don’t just have good ideas. They have good ideas they’ve pulled apart, pre-reported, and even found sources to support.
So why would working journalists just give those away?
I spoke with Alexandra—journalist, producer, and soon-to-be-lawyer—on what she hopes to accomplish by giving away pitch ideas to any writers who might want to develop them into their own. Turns out, the motivation is pretty simple. She loves stories, she’s passionate about journalism, and she understands that generosity and collaboration are key to making this industry work for all of us.
Alexandra Cardinale on Giving Away Her Pitch Ideas
OMQ: First, can you tell us how you might introduce yourself at a writer’s conference? What’s the elevator pitch on you and your work?
Alexandra: I am a journalist-soon-to-be-lawyer! I've spent half a decade in a dozen newsrooms including Vox and the Wall Street Journal where I was a video journalist focused on tech and economic policy. I'm now entering law school where my goal is to defend journalists as a first amendment litigator with the hope to always and consistently contribute to the field of journalism even through my legal career.
Tell us about your newsletter, Case by Case.
We publish great pitches for journalists.
It's as simple as that. Our free newsletter gives journalists high-value leads so that they know where to direct their investigative energy.
We know it works because we are journalists who've cut our teeth at brand name publications. We know how the sausage gets made, and more importantly, we know what gets left on the cutting room floor. Case By Case's minimalist newsletter and podcast gives you exactly what you need to go into a pitch meeting and get that green light from your editor.
How do you approach coming up with ideas for pitches? How much work do you put into a pitch idea before you actually pitch it and what type of pre-reporting is involved in your process?
Great question. This breaks down into 2 parts.
Part of being a journalist is being naturally curious. Great stories start from great questions, but coming up with questions isn't actually the hard part. It's validating that the question is worth asking that's the hard part.
Consequently, we've developed a regimented, 2-step writer's room process that results in our published pitches.
1) First we have what we call our "first pitch" meeting. That is where one of us presents a question. The key here is that the questions must be a) narrow, b) make people curious enough that they care about a relevant answer, and c) already have the beginnings of an answer ready to go––basically a hypothesis that we know we can validate. The goal here is to ensure we have a story with direction and ending rather than a generic topic.
Once we've validated the question, we validate the pitch with step 2.
2) We have what we call our pitch defense meeting 3-4 days later. This provides enough time for research and pre-interviews. Funnily enough, both Kate and I are entering law school, so we wanted to approach our pitches simultaneously as journalists and lawyers would, by establishing dedicated time to attack and defend ideas. Thus, by design, one person presents their research for the pitch with all the relevant information, including who are good sources and why, what publications people should pitch to and why, what data supports their claims, the news peg etc. and the other person deliberately pokes holes in their pitch by pointing out where logic might not be as strong as it could be, demands fact checks, and points out what information is extraneous versus what information is absolutely crucial to get this pitch greenlit in a newsroom.
We go through one more write up, what we call a "fine draft," then review and fact check before publishing the pitch. For every other story, we just launched a podcast where we talk through the pitching process and provide a wider lens into what exactly made that pitch worth pursuing.
It's a surprising amount of work, but it's also the exact process we used when we developed some of our most critical and popular pieces while in-house.
Most great journalists naturally do this in their heads and in a silo. Even the biggest newsrooms don't have much collaboration so these skills don't disseminate easily. So, we just put it on paper and make it a replicable process. That way, all that knowledge is of service to other journalists looking for ideas on how to improve their craft.
“Coming up with questions isn't actually the hard part. It's validating that the question is worth asking that's the hard part.”
What inspired you to start sharing your pitches so generously?
I came up with Case By Case because pitching was actually my strongest suit as a journalist. I regularly would have the most green-lit pitches every week and often, I'd have so many pitches that I couldn't develop them all into full stories. Consequently, my colleagues would come ask me what pitches I might have to share or brainstorm with them.
As my career developed I decided to transition into law to become a first amendment litigator to protect the journalists I love. Case By Case is how I straddle both worlds. I could still share the skillset I spent years developing and I could direct great journalists to stories worth pursuing, just like I did as a full time journalist, even though I'm starting law school in the fall.
I’ve seen several discussions in the freelance writing space recently about the importance of an “abundance mindset” when it comes to pitching and finding work—and your newsletter is a great illustration of that. How do you personally maintain an abundance mindset, or not worry about giving story ideas away because there are plenty to go around?
Oh boy is that accurate. First, pitching is a muscle and publications are unique. It takes practice not only to pitch, but also to understand the tone of who their audience is (and all of them have different audiences). So doing a metric ton of pitching is critical to your own development, regardless of whether you ultimately pursue the story.
Second, and this might be a controversial perspective but is a thought process that resonates with me, sharing story ideas isn't anything to worry about. Stories are everywhere. It's executing them and doing them justice that's the hard bit.
And guess what? Even if you decide not to pursue a story today, there are always good stories out there for tomorrow. Stories are not a finite resource. A great journalist finds them—they don’t hoard them.
I knew plenty of people who acted like Golem found the ring when it came to their story ideas and after years of working with them, I have come to the conclusion that, more often than not, it's a sign of intellectual insecurity.
Sure, some stories will make your career. And you'll make those. But most stories won't. And if you're not pursuing them, and it's a story worth telling, who are you to stand in the way of that? Journalists are meant to be conduits to stories and information so that the public can make better decisions with high quality information. If there is a reporter out there who isn't pursuing a story but still won't share it with others, then they're doing a disservice to themselves, their peers, the public, and the entirety of the 4th estate.
Keeping an abundance mindset in mind means you have to understand that sharing stories is bigger than you or I. It's about contributing to something more that you––to the space of intellectually rigorous and worthwhile journalism.
Can you share any success stories of writers using pitches from Case by Case?
Yes! Chaise Lounge recently used our pitch on how advertising has changed period stigma and published it in a series on period poverty! It was a lovely piece that absolutely made my day to see that Case By Case provided something of value to the reporter community.
If someone gave you the start of a story idea, the way you’re doing with Case by Case, how would you get started in fleshing it out and making it your own?
This is something we are covering more and more in our podcast, and as an annual subscriber, people can join in our pitch meetings to do with us! Essentially, we would fold their idea into our system of pitching and fill out any of the gaps we see. Is there a guiding question? Can we answer it? Where do we find the answer? Why do people care? Why do people care now? What's the takeaway from the story? Who do we have to talk to? Who do we pitch to? And a dozen others.
These are all critical questions that need answers before a pitch is ready for a greenlight in any newsroom, and therefore, it need answers in our newsroom.
Tell us about working with both words and video. I see you got started as a writer but now you’re a senior video producer. What inspired that transition and how did you acquire the skills to get into video production?
This is a funny-isn't-life-weird-kind-of-story haha. In college I ran a gaming youtube channel called the Gamerette. It was a mostly lighthearted and silly take on playing video games from the perspective of a media critic (I was a media student at NYU at the time). It gained a small following, and before I knew it, folks like Google asked to sponsor me, so I started to take the production aspect of my work more seriously. I was entirey self taught by YouTube, and applied to video journalism jobs with that skillset and my very amateur portfolio. Ultimately, after some dogged networking I found a startup that hired me and that kicked off my career!
I see you’ve worked on staff at publications including Vox and the Wall Street Journal. Can you give us some pros and cons of working on staff versus freelance? If you were giving advice to a journalist who is new to the job market, would you recommend going freelance or looking for a staff position?
This isn't groundbreaking, and most folks in this field might echo this.
Some pros of working in-house: healthcare, a stable paycheck, sometimes union rights. Freelance work has none of that.
Cons of in-house: Depending on where you are, there are a lot of diva personalities (which, I sort of understand, some people are institutions within institutions. It doesn't mean they're not the absolute worst to work with). Company politics. Little freedom to pursue the stories you want and/or with the resources you want. Countless great stories get left on the cutting room floor because they don't fit the newscycle or would take too much money to execute. It's an aggravating feeling to be told no, and then have to pursue another story that is a carbon copy of the last popular story the firm published.
With freelance, you get that freedom.
For new folks, I'd absolutely recommend going to a staff position for a while just to cut your teeth. Make a very active part of your job asking questions, getting advice and critique, and write everything down. So much more than you think is just kept inside people's heads and isn't easily sharable. But then, when you have the freedom, audience, stability, whatever––leave. There's a reason countless journalists have done it. Johnny Harris, Carlos Maza, Casey Newton, [insert every other single major journalist on Substack]. Controlling your audience is key to controlling your money, and therefore, your freedom to pursue what makes you tick.
Has journalism ever felt unsustainable for you? How did you get past that and stick with it?
Yes and no. I was remarkably lucky to have consistent work essentially since I graduated from school. But a lot of that had to do with the fact that I aggressively always applied to jobs, even when I had them, both so I could make sure I was keeping my portfolio and interview skills sharp, but also because sh*t happens. You get let go. COVID throws the industry into turmoil. Facebook makes an algorithm change and entire companies go under. Keeping that portfolio fresh and your networks updated can help provide some cover if things go sideways.
That being said, I also am by definition, not sticking with purely journalism (a little bit). I think it's important to have 2 skillsets, particularly if one of them is in an unstable field. So after working 5 years in journalism, I decided the best way to serve my stories is to follow a parallel path and actually go to law school. I'm going to be a first amendment litigator and protect journalists so that they can pursue stories without fear. One day, I may end up laterally moving back into being a journalist, in which case, I'll use my legal expertise to be an even sharper reporter.
But in all honestly, I'm also going to law school because I actually didn't love where my career was going, I didn't love the instability and low pay and crushing hours, and most importantly, I felt I wasn't jealous of any of my bosses. I liked my work, but I didn't want to climb their ladder to be a supervising producer or EP. So I had to find a new challenge that helped me stay within the world of media I loved, while giving me a new skillset I could develop.
Case By Case does exactly that for me. I will keep pitching and pursuing stories out of love and commitment to the journalistic community and a great story, and be entirely self-funded by the community. All in service to journalism, but not because I need the title of journalist on my resume anymore.
Besides the newsletter, what is one piece of work you’re especially proud of?
Best story I ever pursued; Why ramen is valuable in prison. Nearly 9 million views and touched on everything that made me curious. A weird story. An emotional interview. A bigger picture no one saw coming. I've chased the high of that story ever since.
What can we expect to see from Case by Case in the future?
Two new things!
1. We just released our paid version of the service. Subscribers get early access to pitches before the rest of our readers and full uncut interviews with our sources on the podcast.
2. We recently launched our new podcast! It's very experimental still so we take a lot of feedback from our listeners. It's designed to be a supplement our newsletter by diving deeper into how we validate our pitches.
That’s all for today, friends. Thank you so much to Alexandra for chatting with us for today’s Q&A.
Did you catch yesterday’s round-up of pitch calls for Popular Mechanics, TripSavvy, Mashable and 15 other editors who are waiting for your email? Free subscribers, you can upgrade now for full access to all past issues of One More Question, including those weekly round-ups of resources that will help you pitch and get paid!
And if you’re a student or recent graduate, click here for a 40% discount.