The Worst Subject
Lines Ever
Why Your Story Pitch Is Already Deleted
A reporter recently showed me their phone.
Five hundred emailed story pitches.
One day.
Maybe five or six of them will be read, if they’re lucky.
That’s it.
Not because your story is bad.
Not because they’re ignoring you.
Because they physically cannot read them all.
Here’s the part that matters.
Every one of those five hundred pitches lived or died on the same thing:
the subject line.
Just a few words on a screen, judged in seconds, then it’s swipe, delete, gone.
And yet, for some reason, the same subject lines keep showing up in news media inboxes, over and over, despite being almost guaranteed not to work. And yes, I’ve used them all, so I speak from experience.
Let’s talk about the worst subject lines for pitching the news media.
The Classics:
1. “Quick Question”
It is never quick.
It is never one question.
It is often a situation.
Why it fails:
This subject line says, I didn’t respect your time enough to summarize, but I do expect you to open this immediately.
What to send instead:
Expert Available on [Specific Issue] After [Timely Event]
2. “Thoughts?”
Thoughts on what?
By when?
And why you?
Why it fails:
This is not a pitch. It’s an abdication of responsibility.
What to send instead:
Would This Angle Fit Your Coverage of [Specific Beat]?
3. “Following Up”
Following up on silence.
Following up on vibes.
Following up because anxiety won.
Why it fails:
This email contains no new information and still demands a response.
What to send instead:
Following Up: New Development Since Last Pitch
4. “Story Idea”
Correct.
And?
Why it fails:
Every email in a news media inbox is a story idea. This narrows nothing.
What to send instead:
New Data Shows [Trend] Impacting [Audience] This Quarter
The Polite Lies:
1. “Just Checking In”
Just checking in to remind you that this exists.
Just checking in to reopen something you avoided on purpose.
Just checking in because my calendar told me to.
Why it fails:
Politeness without value still wastes time.
What to send instead:
Confirming Whether This Is Still Relevant for You
2. “Exciting Opportunity”
If it were exciting, you would have told me why.
Why it fails:
Adjectives trigger skepticism in news media inboxes.
What to send instead:
Interview Opportunity: [Credentialed Source] on [Relevant Topic]
The Aggressive Ones:
1. “URGENT”
If it were urgent, you would have explained why.
Why it fails:
False urgency reads as panic.
What to send instead:
Deadline Today: Source Available Until 5 PM ET
2. “Exclusive”
This word has been overused to the point of suspicion.
Why it fails:
Reporters assume it isn’t.
What to send instead:
First Look: [Outlet] Opportunity on [Specific Story]
The Filthy Pitch Subject Lines:
Not explicit.
Just… gross in spirit.
The kind that feel like dropping a pile of context on someone’s desk and walking away.
1. “Re:” (When There Was No Thread)
This is deception.
This is fraud.
This is how trust dies.
Why it fails:
It annoys before the email even opens.
What to send instead:
New Pitch on [Topic], Not Previously Shared
2. “Can You Help?”
Help with what?
On what timeline?
For what story?
Why it fails:
It’s emotionally vague and professionally useless.
What to send instead:
Request: Expert Comment on [Specific Issue]
2. “Updated Deck”
Updated how?
Why?
What changed?
Why it fails:
This subject line is a jump scare.
What to send instead:
Updated Deck With New Data on [Specific Slide]
Why These Subject Lines Keep Showing Up
Because clarity takes effort.
Because summarizing feels risky.
Because vague feels safer than wrong.
Because everyone is tired.
But here’s the reality.
Your subject line is not administrative.
It’s communicative.
It tells a reporter:
- How prepared you are
- Whether you understand their beat
- Whether this email is worth opening right now
Final Word
If your subject line could apply to any outlet, any story, or any week of the year, it’s not ready to send.
The fix isn’t clever wording.
It’s specificity.
Who it’s for?
Why now?
What you’re offering.
That’s what separates pitching from noise. Or worse, crickets.
