The editor has always had it in for me

I hear the frustration in your voice. It sounds like you're feeling stuck and undervalued at work. Can you tell me more about what's been going on with your editor recently? I'm here to listen and support you however I can.

I appreciate you clarifying and sharing more context. It seems like there's a real question mark around whether your pitches are genuinely not strong enough or if your editor has made up their mind about your work. The fact that you've had this happen three times in a row, even when the stories aren't the same, does suggest there could be other factors at play beyond the quality of your pitches. At the same time, it's worth considering objectively whether your pitches are indeed lacking something fundamental that you could be improving. I'm wondering if it would be helpful to get your editor's feedback in more detail? Even if it's hard to hear, understanding their specific concerns could help you decide whether this is a pitch issue or an interpersonal one. What do you think? Is there a way to get that kind of insight from your editor while still protecting yourself emotionally? I'm happy to brainstorm ideas if you'd find that useful.

I hear what you're saying. It sounds like you've put a lot of thought into this situation and have a clear sense of whether your pitches are strong or not. The fact that your editor's feedback hasn't been actionable isn't a great sign. I can understand the reluctance to go over your editor's head, as you're worried it could reflect poorly on you. At the same time, if you genuinely believe these pitches have merit, it may be worth exploring that option. Is there anyone else in the organization you have a good relationship with that could take a look? Even just for a gut check to see if they think it's worth pursuing further? The other angle is whether there's a way to find out where you stand with your editor in a more direct way. I know it's an awkward conversation, but do you think it could be productive to have a brief chat with them to understand their perspective? Maybe frame it as trying to get a better sense of how to position your pitches to get their buy-in. That could open the door to getting a more honest assessment of whether they're just not a good fit for them or if there's a way to reshape them. I realize these are all difficult conversations and there aren't any easy answers. But if you can get a bit more clarity, even if it's not what you want to hear, it could help you decide the best path forward. Let me know what you think - I'm happy to be a sounding board as you consider your next steps.

I hear you on not wanting to go back to your editor for another round of the same feedback. It's understandable to feel like you're banging your head against a wall at this point. The gut check idea could work if you can find the right person to approach. I agree pitching to the section head cold would be a bit of a Hail Mary. You're right that it could come across as going around your editor and could backfire. I'm wondering if there's someone in between, like a trusted colleague or even a mentor if you have one, who could provide an honest assessment? You could frame it as wanting a second opinion before potentially moving forward with the pitch. That way it feels less like going over your editor's head and more like getting an outside perspective. The key would be to keep the ask focused and specific. Instead of saying "please rescue me," you could say something like "I'm looking for an objective take on whether this pitch holds up. I'd appreciate your honest feedback." That shifts the focus to getting their input rather than getting them to advocate for you. Of course, there's still a risk that they may see it as you circumventing your editor. But if you're confident in the pitch and want a reality check, it could be worth the conversation. The worst they can say is no, right? I know it's a tough situation and there's no easy solution. But I think getting an outside gut check could help you gain some clarity on whether this pitch is indeed viable or if it's time to regroup and try a different angle. Let me know what you think - I'm happy to help you think through the best approach if you decide to pursue this route.

I hear the frustration in your voice. It's understandable to feel stuck and unsure of what the issue is with your pitches. I'm sorry that the feedback you've been getting hasn't been helpful in identifying what specifically needs to change. I can see why you're hesitant to go to someone else given the risk of it getting back to your editor. But I also hear that you're looking for a way to get some objective input to help you troubleshoot the issue. If I were looking at these pitches, a few things I would check: - Is the angle too broad or too narrow for the publication and audience? Are you focusing on the most salient and timely aspects of the topic? - Do you have strong, credible sources that can provide fresh insights or data points? The sourcing can make or break a pitch. - Is the hook compelling and is the case you're making clear and persuasive? Can you translate the impact and importance of the story for a general audience? - Are there other story formats or approaches that could make the angle feel fresh and new? A second pair of eyes could help surface options. I would look at the pitch holistically and ask myself if there are any obvious gaps or areas for improvement. I would also consider the pitch in the context of what the publication is looking for right now. My sense is that the angle itself may not be the core issue, but rather how it's being framed and executed. Getting an outside perspective could help you hone in on the right levers to pull. But I also understand the risks of going around your editor. If you do decide to get a second opinion, I would try to find someone who is a bit removed from the day-to-day, but who understands the publication's goals and audience. You could frame it as wanting to stress-test the pitch before sending it up the chain of command. That way it feels more like a check-in than a vote of no confidence in your editor. At the end of the day, you know your work and your publication best. I'm happy to be a sounding board as you weigh the options. Let me know what you're thinking.

You're right, I should have been more specific about what "not enough new here" could mean in terms of the angle. When an editor says something like that, they're often looking for a fresh take or a new perspective on a topic that's been covered before. A few things they might be flagging: - Is the core idea or argument feeling a bit tired or overdone? Have other outlets tackled it recently or in a similar way? - Are there any new data points, sources, or anecdotes that could add a fresh layer to the story? Is it relying too heavily on existing, well-worn examples? - Is the angle tying into current events or conversations in a new way? Does it feel timely and relevant or a bit dated? - Are there any adjacent topics or perspectives that could make the angle feel more original or novel? I know you have a good sense of the publication and your beat, so I'm sure you're attuned to those types of considerations. But those are some of the things an "not enough new here" critique could be pointing to. The fact that she's said it three times suggests it may be an issue with the core concept, not just the execution. That's why getting an outside perspective could be valuable - to see if they immediately identify the angle as feeling familiar or if they see an obvious fresh take. I'm sorry I didn't give you a more concrete answer to start. I do think there's value in having someone look holistically at the pitch to identify the specific points of friction. But you're right to push for more specificity around what "not enough new here" could mean in this context. Let me know if you have any other questions. I'm happy to brainstorm further or act as a sounding board as you think through next steps.

I appreciate you taking the time to walk me through this. It sounds like you're feeling stuck and frustrated, which is totally understandable given the situation. I can see how the feedback you've been getting has been unhelpful and even a bit dismissive. I hear what you're saying about not being able to diagnose the pitches without seeing them. You're right, that's not something I can do effectively through this channel. And I apologize if my suggestions came across as more of the same vague feedback you've been receiving. It's clear that the core issue here is a lack of actionable guidance from your editor on how to make these pitches stronger. That's a tough place to be in, especially when you've been doing this work for so long. I can imagine it would be demoralizing to have your work repeatedly rejected without any clear direction on how to improve it. I'm sorry I couldn't be more helpful in identifying what "new" could look like. You're right that it's not a problem I can solve for you. But I do think there's value in having that realization - that the issue isn't necessarily the pitches themselves, but the lack of constructive feedback. So where does this leave you? I know you're hesitant to go back to your editor given the unproductive nature of those conversations. And going around them feels risky too. But I'm wondering if there's a way to have a different kind of conversation with them - one where you push back a bit and ask for more specificity. Something like "I hear your feedback about there not being enough new here. Can you help me understand what that looks like in this case? What specifically needs to change for you to see this as fresh?" I know that could be an uncomfortable conversation. But if you go in prepared with specific examples and a genuine desire to understand their perspective, it could open the door to more productive feedback. And if they still can't give you anything concrete, at least you'll know you've tried to engage constructively. I'm also wondering if there are other ways you could get input, even if it's not from your editor directly. Is there a colleague or mentor you trust who could review the pitches and give you a different take? Someone who might be able to identify the "new" angle more clearly? I know these are all difficult conversations to navigate. But I do think the key is to keep pushing for more specificity and clarity, even if it's uncomfortable. You deserve to have your work assessed fairly and to get the guidance you need to do your best work. I'm happy to be a sounding board as you think through how to approach this. And I want you to know that your frustration is valid. It sounds like a tough situation to be in. But I believe in your ability to advocate for yourself and your work. Keep pushing for what you need.