|
|
| Volume 49, Number 1, Spring 2000 |
by Tabitha M. Powledge
If you're looking for a job, the best place to start is to chair NASW's freelance committee. For the second time in the past few months, a perspicacious employer swooped down and plucked up Our Leader. Last time it was Joel Shurkin, who went to the Office of Communications and Public Affairs at Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions. This time it was Kathryn Brown, who was hired by Science News. Then Kathryn rethought and decided to remain a freelance after all.
Even when employed, both Joel and Kathryn classified themselves as freelances and remained on the committee. Thorough realism. In the present market, it makes sense to think of a job as simply a regular gig that lasts as long as it lasts. Freelancing is forever.
However, Kathryn did vacate the chair. By acclamation same was quickly occupied by author, raconteur, and long-time freelance Beryl Benderly. Beryl vows not to take a job. We shall see.
Membership of the freelance committee has also changed a bit. Here's the current roster: Beryl Benderly (chair), Steven Benowitz, Henry Bortman, Kathryn S. Brown, Lynne Lamberg, Brian Lavendel, John Miller, Tabitha M. Powledge, Richard Robinson, Dodi Schultz, Joel Shurkin. As always, this select group invites you to join in the fun. E-mail Beryl at Blbink@aol.com.
But it's not all fun; we're actually contemplating a bit of work. Henry Bortman is launching an ambitious project analogous to the ASJA Contracts Watch. He plans to begin by examining the contracts of some of our most frequent clients. In addition to the fruits of Henry's not inconsiderable labors, the NASW freelance Web site is adding other new features, some of which should have been posted by the time you read this. (www.nasw.org/mem-maint/freelance/) The freelance site is now being managed by me and my master-uh, Webmaster-Fred Powledge. We have ideas for the site, but if you do too, please share.
If it's spring, this must be the annual serving up of periodicals that buy freelance science writing. "Meet the Editors" is a not-to-be-missed staple of NASW's Workshops, which take place the day before the February AAAS Annual Meeting begins. This year's venue was Washington, DC.
It was probably fortuitous, but the Year 2000 editor panel even ran a mini-seminar on the art and science of pitching a piece. A point the editors emphasized over and over is to have a clear idea of what the story is before you send a proposal. Sounds simple and obvious, but it is not always simple and obvious to do. One editor noted that the chief flaw in proposals is that the writer may know the subject well, but is not always clear about what aspect of it needs telling. Said another: Give us a story, not a topic. Another urged writers to say it in a sentence or at most two. One editor noted apologetically that, moldy though it may be, asking "What is the headline?" remains an excellent way of forcing writers to say what it is they want to say.
Corey Powell (corey.powell@disney.com), Discover
The front of the book is mostly staff written, except for "Future Tech", which does use freelances. Most features are written by freelances and run between 2000-4000 words. Discover is looking for stories "told in an organic, captivating way," Powell said, and its editors are open "to new writers with distinctive voices." You'll need an original take on a subject, or have special access to a scientist. They want writers who know what the story is, are passionate about it, and can write. Powell is not interested in topics already covered by Science and Nature. What is fresh and captivating about your subject? A proposal can be a five-minute conversation or a two-paragraph e-mail. Discover pays well, Powell said, never less than $1.50 per word.
Mariette DiChristina (mariette.dichristina@tmm.com), Popular Science
About half the magazine is freelance-written; the front-of-the-book "What's New" section alone accounts for eight or nine pages every month, she said. Her editors are looking for news stories of 100-300 words, and like to break news. Features can be as short as 500 or as long as 3000 words. When pitching, explain why you are uniquely positioned to tell the story. "Tell me what the package is. Include the hed, the deck, a story summary, ideas for art." DiChristina says she is happy to give guidance on written pitches. "Graphics are critically important for us. I expect your time to help with them." Popular Science pays $1 per word to start but can do better.
Colin Norman (cnorman@aaas.org), Science
Norman pointed out that Science publishes well over 1000 pages of news and feature material a year, 300-400 pages of it written by freelances. This includes short pieces about Web sites and nuggets for "Random Samples", between 200-300 words. "News of the Week" ranges between 300-1000 words. News focus articles are more feature-y, a behind-the-headlines, longer-range view. Length starts at 1000 words and can go up to 7000 words for special investigative pieces. Half of the freelance articles come from regular contributors and the others from freelances who may do only one or two pieces a year for Science. The journal is interested only in pieces with a strong connection to basic science and the basic science community. It is looking for news from inside science, controversies in the science community, stories describing the way new results came about, tales of the process as well as the outcome. New writers are paid $1 per word, but long-term writers get a lot more, Norman said. There is also ScienceNOW, a newsy daily Web service that is, he said, a good way for new writers to break in to Science. Web pieces are between 300-400 words and always include outside comment. ScienceNOW's editor is Erik Stokstad, estoksta@aaas.org.
Herb Brody (hbrody@mit.edu), Technology Review
The new Technology Review, a bimonthly, straddles science and business. It wants articles on new developments inscience and technology with near-term practical applications. The magazine relies heavily on freelances; about half the book is freelance-written, mostly features. The front-of-the-book uses pieces of 400-500 words and is a good place for new writers to start. Feature subjects include computers, the Web, biotechnology, materials science, nanotechnology. It helps, Brody said, to find a lab or a company, especially a start-up, at that transition point where the magazine focuses. He advised giving him a call to discuss your idea before sending in a proposal because he likes to work with writers to develop a proposal from the beginning. "We can figure out what the story is and take it from there," he said. Technology Review rates begin at the standard $1 per word, but "people who write like angels and behave like angels get considerably more." Brody is primarily responsible for coverage of information technology. Queries on materials science and nanotechnology should go to David Rotman, drotman@mit.edu. Biotechnology queries should go to editor-in-chief John Benditt, jbenditt@mit.edu.
Bob Holmes (bholmes@nasw.org), New Scientist
Holmes is newly in charge of features at the British weekly, although for the preceding five-plus years he was a freelance correspondent for the magazine. About half the 1500-2000 pages it publishes every year are written by freelances, he said. Some readers are not practicing scientists, so all of their articles, he noted, walk a fine line, providing enough technical details for the scientist reader, but not enough to bog down the general reader. A biology story, he said, needs to be interesting to physicists, and vice-versa. News items range between 250-450 words. The main requirement is, is it new? Unpublished work is fine, even if it has not been peer reviewed; it's up to the writer to make sure it's kosher. Features-covering fascinating new ideas that change the way people think about a subject-are typically 2400 words. New Scientist also publishes opinion pieces and book reviews and is actively looking for reviewers. The magazine also wants interviews with prominent controversial scientists. E-mail contact is best. New Scientist emphasizes fast-breaking news, so if you stumble over a great idea at a meeting, get in touch fast and be prepared to write right away. The magazine pays $1 per word, and Holmes noted that there is some talk of raising the rates for US writers. "We can't pay as much as the others, but we can buy more words," he said. Also, the magazine makes retainer arrangements with some of its favorite writers. For news, Dan Clery, dan.clery@rbi.co.uk.
Peter Aldhous (p.aldhous@nature.com), Nature
Aldhous had just joined Nature at the time of the workshop, and was still developing ideas for changes in the front of the book. But he forecast more opportunities for freelancing than in the past, especially more science writing to supplement the previous emphasis on science policy. In April, Nature began publishing features, and he provided the following update by e-mail: "Nature is happy to consider pitches from freelancers for feature articles. Nature features are typically between 1600 words and 3200 words long, for which our standard rate for contributions from freelancers based in North America is $1 per published word. We're principally looking for authoritative, timely articles on 'hot' or emerging areas of research. They should be written to provide sufficient scientific depth to be satisfying to researchers in the field, while being accessible to working scientists in other disciplines. Pitches are best made by e-mail, although feel free to follow up with a telephone call. Please send two or three paragraphs summarizing the proposed article and explaining why it is timely and likely to be of interest to a broad range of Nature's readers."
New on the Web
My blue-bound copy of the Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy was once an invaluable research tool--not very costly, updated frequently, and available at general bookstores. Just the ticket for a quick overview of some unfamiliar medical topic.
In recent years the Merck Manual has, of course, been supplanted by other sources, most of them on the Web. But the Web is not particularly useful for the quick overview. Web medical resources are such a growth industry that a search generates far too many options, even with a highly selective search engine like Google or a categorical one like Northern Light. Sorting and evaluating the hits take so much time that I sometimes feel I have backslid to the days of riffling through the card catalog at the New York Academy of Medicine library.
So it's good news that the Merck Manual is online. Three different Merck Manuals, actually. My companion of yore, the Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy, is now in its Seventeenth Edition (www.merck.com/pubs/mmanual/.) It has been joined by the Merck Manual of Medical Information - Home Edition, which first appeared in 1997 and makes some effort to simplify its language for the lay reader. Which is not infrequently us (www.merck.com/pubs/mmanual_home/). The third is the more specialized Merck Manual of Geriatrics, which first appeared in 1990. This is the Second Edition. I anticipate we will all find it increasingly useful, personally if not professionally (www.merck.com/pubs/mm_geriatrics/toc.htm).
All three Mercks are both free and searchable, and searches go quite fast.
Having praised the Encyclopaedia Britannica bountifully in these precincts, I feel obliged to warn you off the latest CD version, which engages in the sort of computer expropriation that got Microsoft into so much trouble. Apparently no one has yet reported the venerable EB to Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson. But the following devastating communique was received from my colleague, close personal friend, and relative-by-marriage, noted author and Webmaster Fred Powledge.
"When I installed the Encyclopaedia Britannica 'Deluxe edition CD2000' on my Windows-based machine, I expected that it would seek out an existing version of Internet Explorer 5.x or, if it were missing, install a copy. I knew from previous installations that EB uses the Microsoft browser for its display.
"What I was not prepared for was the program's trashing of my existing IE5 and replacing it with Britannica's own version of the browser, complete with its own custom window title, 'Microsoft Internet Explorer provided by Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.' [sic]. Nor for the conversion of my Windows desktop into an 'Active Desktop,' nor for the changes in the way the computer now displayed directories ('folders').
"Outraged by this intrusion into my personal space, I called EB's support people. "That's the way it's designed," said one young man named Rock. 'We've gotten lots of complaints about it.' A few days later, I called again. This time, the techie not only confirmed that there were plenty of complaints; he told me how to at least get rid of the arbitrary window title. This involved editing the Windows Registry, which sane people are often reluctant to do. For the rest of us, after installing the new EB program:
"Close everything but your desktop. Back up the Registry by copying USER.DAT and SYSTEM.DAT to a safe place. From your desktop, do Start . . . Run . . . Regedit. Drill down to the section named 'HKEY_current_user\Software\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\Main." Scroll down to the line that says "Window Title" Microsoft Internet Explorer provided by . . .
"Highlight 'Window Title,' click on 'Edit . . . Modify,' and eliminate the advertising. Or, if you want to be a wiseguy like me, type in your own sage comment.
"You may want to remove the following line, also. If it exists, it starts "Search Bar . . ." and attempts to make you use www.britannica.com as your prime search engine. Close and save the edited Registry. The changes will be reflected next time you boot up. If there are any problems, use your emergency floppy to boot. You DO have an emergency floppy, right?
"To get rid of Active Desktop (you may like it; I don't), go to Start . . . Settings . . . Active Desktop.
"These are, of course, instructions for Windows machines. Macusers are too smart to need encyclopedias. Or even encyclopaedias."
Tabitha M. Powledge can be reached via e-mail at tam@nasw.org.