Present original in-depth research Magazines want originality. This is one of the reasons they covet writers who present new discoveries. And this is one reason why they prize writers, like Malcolm Gladwell, who popularize these new discoveries. You don’t have to be a scientist to pull this off. You can interview people, run a split-test, dig through archives, or poll an audience. But just any old discovery won’t do. You need to follow the advice of Hungarian physicist Albert Szent-Gyorgyi: Research is to see what everybody else has seen, and to think what nobody else has thought. Your job is to identify that never-before-explored angle — and expose it. This is how journalists win Pulitzer Prizes … And keep in mind: They aren’t handing out Pulitzer’s for blog posts.
Go beyond the obvious If your philippines photo editor discovery doesn’t move our understanding of a topic at least a hair’s breadth, then it’s not original. Teach us something new. Or something we couldn’t figure out in a few seconds with a pencil and piece of scrap paper. In other words: Avoid the self-evident. Writers often make the mistake of quoting statistics that have become clichés. Like the number of blog posts published every day … that’s a favorite stat used by lazy writers. Especially in openings. It turns the reader cold… 3. Use an impartial approach (mostly) This one you can fudge on, because even great journalists weren’t afraid to inject their personalities and opinions into their content.
Think Joan Didion and Hunter S. Thompson. Besides, a blog post is a perfect vehicle for a rant. We may even select our favorite writers based upon the personality and flair they infuse in their writing. We like the angle they take when approaching a subject. We like that they tackle issues with unconventional methods. Or perhaps we just dig their dysfunctions. 4. Try a penetrating breakdown Great content is born when you take a topic and tease apart the nuances. It’s like dissecting an animal. Show us the meat of the article, how it’s connected to other arguments, and where these conclusions could lead. What’s important, however, is that you are an expert on the subject matter. If you’re not an expert, your analysis may be naive and flat-out wrong.