Journalism Pitch Emails
Journalism Pitch — Cold Emails to Editors and Reporters
Companion to press_kit.md
Purpose: The press kit is a full briefing document. These are the short cold emails that get an editor to open the press kit. Different outlets get different pitches, because their reporters write different stories.
Rules for sending:
- One outlet at a time. No mass blasts. Editors talk to each other; a pitch sent to ten people gets opened by zero.
- Always to a specific person. Outlet-level inboxes (
tips@) are graveyards. Name a reporter or editor whose recent work matches the angle. - Subject line is 70% of the open rate. Lead with the story, not the source.
- Three sentences in the body. The press kit is the attachment. Editors skim. Don’t make them read.
- Mention what you can offer in concrete terms. Documents, named workers, exclusive window.
- Follow up once at 7 days, once at 21 days. After that, move on.
- Never write “I think this would interest you.” Editors decide what interests them. Tell them what the story is.
PART 1 — Pitch Letter Variants
A. ProPublica — Local Reporting Network or Worker rights desk
Best contacts:
- Local Reporting Network editor (currently Charles Ornstein; verify before sending)
- Investigative reporters with prior labor or building-trades coverage
Subject line:
One union has been quietly paying electricians below the rate of another union — for nineteen years
Body:
Charles —
In 2007, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters signed an electrical agreement in St. Louis that pays workers significantly below the established electrical trade rate for the same work, on the same projects, in the same city. They have been quietly expanding it ever since, including on federally funded jobs that may not comply with Davis-Bacon or the IRA’s prevailing-wage requirements. Cumulative loss to workers since 2007 is estimated in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
We have side-by-side wage and pension data, certified actuarial projections, named workers ready to speak on the record, two former carpenters willing to talk on background, and a list of publicly funded projects where the compliance question is live. We are prepared to give one outlet a four-week exclusive window with full document access.
The attached kit has the full picture. If this is something the Local Reporting Network or a member newsroom would want to take, I can be on a call this week.
— [Name], [title], IBEW Local [#] · [phone] · [email]
B. The Guardian US — Labor / Workers desk
Best contacts:
- Michael Sainato (freelance, contributes regularly on US labor)
- Steven Greenhouse (longtime labor reporter, occasional contributor)
- Guardian US labor editor (rotates; check masthead)
Subject line:
“Union label, cut-rate wages” — a 19-year scab arrangement hidden inside the AFL-CIO’s family
Body:
[Reporter] —
I’m working with six IBEW locals in the St. Louis region on a story I think is squarely in your wheelhouse. The United Brotherhood of Carpenters has, since 2007, represented electricians under a separate agreement that pays significantly below the established electrical area standard — a working-class wage cut hiding behind a union label, signed by one international against the standard of another. Workers in the program are largely unaware of the gap.
We have the wage data, pension projections, named workers, dissident carpenters on background, and federal compliance angles (Davis-Bacon, IRA tax credits). The piece writes itself; we are looking for the right reporter to write it. Attached kit has the full picture.
Happy to talk this week.
— [Name], [title], IBEW Local [#] · [phone] · [email]
C. More Perfect Union — Video-first, working-class audience
Best contacts:
- Faiz Shakir (founder) — or his executive producer
- The producer who handled their recent building-trades or amazon-warehouse coverage
Subject line:
Worker story: electricians paid less than the rate by a union they trust — and they don’t know it
Body:
[Producer] —
Three working St. Louis electricians are willing to speak on camera about a 19-year arrangement that has cost each of them an estimated $400K+ over their careers: a substandard electrical contract their own union signed without their knowledge. The story is visual (their pay stubs vs. the area rate), emotional (one is the son of an IBEW journeyman), and structural (a major international running a discount program inside the labor movement).
We can give a video team three on-the-record workers, jobsite access, archival footage, and exclusive document material. The attached kit has the full briefing. We are not pitching this anywhere else for video and would give MPU an exclusive window.
— [Name], [title], IBEW Local [#] · [phone] · [email]
D. The Lever — Investigative, policy-adjacent
Best contacts:
- David Sirota (founder) or a senior reporter
- Reporter who has handled IRA implementation or labor compliance stories
Subject line:
The IRA’s “good jobs” promise has a $X million hole in St. Louis
Body:
[Reporter] —
The Inflation Reduction Act’s prevailing-wage and registered-apprenticeship requirements were supposed to lock in middle-class construction wages on the projects taking those tax credits. In the St. Louis region, federally funded electrical work is being performed by workers under a 2007 carpenters’ union arrangement that pays significantly below the published prevailing rate — and may not meet the IRA’s apprenticeship standards either. The clawback exposure is real. No one has reported it.
Six IBEW locals are filing parallel WHD and IRS actions and are prepared to give one outlet exclusive document access. The attached kit has the full picture.
— [Name], [title], IBEW Local [#] · [phone] · [email]
E. Center for Public Integrity / ICIJ-adjacent
Best contacts:
- Investigations editor — currently Jamie Smith Hopkins or successor (verify masthead before sending)
- Any reporter with prior LM-2 / union-finance reporting
Subject line:
LM-2 trail: How one international union built a substandard side-business in another trade
Body:
[Editor] —
The United Brotherhood of Carpenters’ representation of electrical workers in St. Louis is a documented, two-decade arrangement with public LM-2, Form 5500, and Davis-Bacon paper trails — but no one has done the forensic financial work to map dues flow, executive comp, training-fund mechanics, and consultant payments inside it. We have the working set, named workers, and dissident sources, and we are looking for an investigative partner who can do the financial work properly.
Attached kit has the briefing. Exclusive window available.
— [Name], [title], IBEW Local [#] · [phone] · [email]
F. St. Louis Post-Dispatch — Local enterprise / business desk
Best contacts:
- Business editor
- Reporter with prior labor or construction beat
Subject line:
Story tip — substandard electrical contracts on St. Louis public projects
Body:
[Reporter] —
I’m reaching out from IBEW Local [#] with a regional story we believe is significantly under-reported. A union electrical agreement covering hundreds of workers in this region has, since 2007, paid wages and benefits materially below the established electrical area standard — including on projects funded in part with federal and local public dollars. We have the data, named workers, and project lists.
We are happy to brief in person at your convenience. The attached kit has the full picture.
— [Name], [title], IBEW Local [#] · [phone] · [email]
G. Bloomberg Law — Labor & Employment
Best contacts:
- Robert Iafolla (labor enforcement reporter)
- Erin Mulvaney (then-Wall Street Journal, may have moved; verify)
- Any reporter covering Davis-Bacon enforcement post-IRA
Subject line:
Davis-Bacon and IRA prevailing-wage exposure: a regional electrical case study
Body:
[Reporter] —
Six IBEW locals in the St. Louis region are preparing a coordinated series of Davis-Bacon complaints with WHD and parallel IRS filings targeting IRA tax-credit projects, based on documented wage and apprenticeship-utilization gaps under a substandard electrical agreement maintained by another international union. The legal posture is unusually clean (the rates are published; the projects are identifiable) and is likely to become a national case study in IRA enforcement.
Happy to brief on the legal strategy and provide the filings as they go in. Attached kit has the underlying story.
— [Name], [title], IBEW Local [#] · [phone] · [email]
H. Construction Dive / Engineering News-Record — Trade press
Best contacts:
- Construction Dive’s labor & workforce reporter
- ENR’s regional editor
Subject line:
Story: regional electrical labor cost gap and its compliance implications for GCs and owners
Body:
[Reporter] —
A specific feature of the St. Louis-region construction labor market — substandard electrical pricing through a non-IBEW union arrangement — has compliance and risk implications that I do not believe have been reported in trade press, particularly with the IRA prevailing-wage rules now active.
We have the data, the project list, named contractors who have moved off the substandard arrangement, and a briefing tailored for the GC/owner risk audience. Attached kit has the wider story; happy to do a trade-press-specific brief on request.
— [Name], [title], IBEW Local [#] · [phone] · [email]
PART 2 — Following Up
Day 7: Single-paragraph nudge.
[Reporter] — circling back on the pitch from last week. We are preparing to send the underlying material to one other outlet by [date] and wanted you to have first look. If it isn’t a fit, no offense taken — a quick “pass” helps me plan.
[Original subject in the thread]
Day 21: One more, narrower hook.
[Reporter] — wanted to flag a development on the story I sent: [the first Davis-Bacon complaint has been filed / the documentary is in production / a named source has agreed to publish / the bridge fund launches next week]. If you’d like the embargoed advance, let me know.
After day 21, drop them from the active list. Don’t burn the relationship. Try again in 6 months with a new development.
PART 3 — Embargo Posture
When the campaign is ready to go public with a major beat (Bridge Fund launch, first complaint filed, documentary trailer, day of action), offer a 48-hour embargo to one outlet that has shown serious interest.
- The exclusive outlet gets the materials early, on the condition of holding publication until the agreed time.
- This is standard practice and signals seriousness.
- Never offer multiple “exclusives” to multiple outlets — you will be caught and blacklisted by both.
- Embargo confirmation should be in writing (email, brief).
Sample embargo offer:
[Reporter] — we’re announcing [Bridge Fund / Day of Action / first federal complaint] at [time, date]. I can send you the full materials under a 48-hour embargo if you want first crack. The materials include [list]. Let me know by [time] if you want it; otherwise I’ll release publicly.
PART 4 — What to Do When the Story Lands
The first major piece is the most important. When it runs:
- Don’t crow. Resharing with a humble “thank you” line outperforms triumphal posting.
- Drive traffic to the campaign URL, not back to the article.
- Have the intake line, web form, and Bridge Fund coordinator staffed up for at least 72 hours of incoming volume.
- Send the article, with a short personal note, to every elected official, labor council officer, contractor partner, and allied clergy/community leader on the list. This converts press into political and institutional pressure within 48 hours.
- Pitch the next outlet immediately with the first piece as proof of concept. The second piece is much easier to land once the first exists.
This document is a working set of templates. Names and emails should be verified against current outlet mastheads before sending. Each pitch should be personalized to the specific reporter’s recent work — never sent as a fill-in-the-blank.