Reporters and Educators — Not Pundits and Commentators
If you value what Product Coalition does as an education community, learn about the types of writers we support.
By Tremis Skeete, for Product Coalition
Product Coalition as a community, strives to understand how product management works, and depending on the industry, business, product or service, or context — the real reasons why.
With over five hundred writers contributing from many cities around the globe, we collaborate to produce informative and useful materials, which include case studies, applied practices, methodologies and processes, how-to articles, retrospectives, constructive perspectives and opinions.
Emphasis on constructive perspectives and opinions. More about that later.
To carry out our mission, coalition founder Jay Stansell determined that our top objective for ProductCoalition.com is to provide a platform for product people to report and share stories about work activities, research, observations and insights to the broader product management community.
That “broader community” includes everyone from someone that’s curious and wants to learn about product management, to someone who’s new to the field and they just got their first product role — to seasoned product leaders who want to share their stories, activities, research, observations and insights as a way of keeping their knowledge and skills up to date.
Education community standards
Quality education and journalism institutions have profited from setting clear standards in regard to how knowledge and lessons are taught, and how stories are reported and told.
And when specialists among these ranks produce knowledge designed to inform not just some, but as many as possible — the outcomes are better than in situations when everyone is allowed to produce material without being subject to review or scrutiny.
Where knowledge is not subject to standards of review, and where anyone, no matter how intelligent they are, can just write and publish knowledge without genuine regard for it’s value in the eyes of readers and learners, and little or no regard for the consequences it generates in a community — the quality of education within the community will be subpar.
Knowledge can build or compromise communities.
Knowledge is a commodity everybody wants, because to have knowledge is like transforming into one who can see the world clearly and see how and why things happen. The transformation is obviously appealing to many, so when people attain knowledge, it’s only natural that some feel that the knowledge belongs to them.
But in reality, that’s not how genuine knowledge works.
It’s because, to apply that perhaps negative mindset to gaining knowledge, is to ultimately hurt the community you’re a member of. That’s because genuine knowledge is not meant to be hoarded and hidden from others.
Instead, knowledge is meant to be shared across communities to help people build better lives.
Knowledge itself has a way of transforming the person who possesses it, but if it’s not acquired with the right backstory and context, knowledge that’s designed to build communities by teaching and sharing insights with others — it can also be knowledge designed to compromise communities by spreading opinions that can create confusion or conflict and division.
This is why at Product Coalition, as a learning community, we feel we need more reporters and educators, and less pundits and commentators.
Because after years of being a journalist and editor for a global publication, we’ve observed the following patterns and distinictions amidst contributors who write to inform and educate others, and contributors who write to share thoughts, commentary and opinions.
All journalists are storytellers.
To those who don’t know, a journalist is someone who writes and delivers stories to the public i.e. everyone. And since it’s part of their job to deliver stories, by definition, journalists are storytellers.
The role of a journalist historically has been expanded into many categories, but for this article, we focus on the following:
Reporters, educators, pundits, commentators.
For this article, please also keep in mind:
When we say “reporters and educators” we describe them in comparable ways one would describe an “investigative reporter”.
When we say “pundits and commentators”, we see them as similar, because in reality they are the same. To distinguish between a reporter and a commentator — it’s like the difference between a “news reporter” and a “news presenter”.
And while the before mentioned are indeed storytellers, the stories they tell are tailored with agendas and goals in mind.
Reporters and educators
Reporters and educators perform research and investigation because they are interested in telling accurate stories designed to teach, inform, enlighten, and empower as many people as possible.
Traditionally, “educators” is not a category found in the journalism discipline, but for this article, I highlight this distinction as a way of saying:
“A reporter with a focus on motivating learners, and providing theory and practice-based instruction, like a teacher or trainer.”
Pundits and commentators
Pundits and commentators are interested in speaking about topics and telling stories designed to generate discussion, debate, or social action, all in order to network with others.
They also promote their own agendas, do marketing and promotion to attract people to brands, selling products and services, and grow their popularity and influence.
Within this category, it can include anyone ranging from news personalities, columnists, talk show hosts, authors, politicians, political commentators, artists, activists, television and movie actors, teachers, professors, professionals… the possibilities are limitless.
Pundits and commentators are okay, but…
There are pundits who not only have access to knowledge, but have tendencies to intentionally or unintentionally distort and lose respect for knowledge. As a result, they use their knowledge to promote and sell ideas, or they use it to persuade, entertain, or manipulate others to gain a following — all to build a popular image or to make money.
Reporters and educators instead, know the innate value of knowledge and it’s ability to empower people with tools designed to raise themselves out of poverty and ignorance, into places of comfort and awareness.
And hopefully, when reporters do empower people with knowledge, they in turn inherit the innate values, and, the willingness to carry on the tradition and share their knowledge and insights with others.
Reporters know the difference between “Knowledge” and “Insights”.
If the previous paragraph piqued your interest, here’s why. Knowledge and insights are fundamentally not the same thing.
When someone says they “know” something, and you ask them “How did you come to know that?” And the response is “I read it in an article.” Then yes, they have attained the “knowledge” but not the “insight”.
That’s because “knowledge” is a way of saying:
“I know about something, because I saw it, or heard about it, or read about it, or I was told about it.”
But “insight” is a way of saying:
“I know for my own self, based on my own personal investigation, examination and experience, why something is the way it is.”
It’s the reason why a product manager’s greatest capabilities are to generate hypotheses, conduct research, talk to customers and stakeholders, perform experiments, analyse the results, identify distinctions and patterns, and produce stories. It’s all designed for product managers to share insights.
Yes, pundits can also do good reporting.
It’s true, we do have contributors who are also pundits or commentators who happen to provide reporting, insights, and constructive perspectives and opinions but sadly — these types of writers are rare.
But what’s also true, is that we have in abundance, contributors who focus on sharing opinions and what some have described as, and I quote, “rants”.
And in moments when we receive submissions from writers who focus on “ranting” and less on reporting, but at the same time we see in the writing, the potential to produce a balanced and informed article — as editors we do reach out to them.
When we do reach out, our hope is the writer is willing to adjust their approach, and we edit the article accordingly.
And sadly, in the instances when the writers resist, we kindly ask them to submit their writing to another publication.
Why do we do this? The answer is simple.
We want writers to produce what our audience deserves, which is explicit instruction material.
Product Coalition operates within a market where there’s great demand from people to learn online, especially since the pandemic back in 2020.
As a brand, we have a captive audience of curious and passionate product enthusiasts, all seeking opportunities to gain knowledge and learn new skills. That audience is attractive to a lot of professionals, trainers, coaches, workshop and conference organisers, product marketers and businesses.
Let’s put our cards on the table. We’re keenly aware that among our contributors, there are coaches, trainers, and others with businsesses who want to offer a wide range of product management and UX courses to our readers. We know there are pundits who want to submit articles as a way to position themselves as “thought leaders” in regard to different topics, because that positioning can lead to discovering new career or business opportunities. We also know there are pundits and businesses out there who want to build relationships with Product Coalition in order to provide variants of SEO, sales and marketing services.
Since we’re aware, it’s not only our responsibility as editors to protect the quality of the Product Coalition brand, but to set strict standards for what we allow these individuals to present to our community.
Since that’s the case, then we say to you, the thought leader, the coach, or trainer, or consultant — please ensure that what you also write is explicit instruction material.
Not marketing material. Explicit instruction material.
Anything less than balanced and informative reporting we will not accept, because that’s not what our readers deserve.
Tips and tricks need background and context.
For example, many pundits love to share tips and tricks, which is good. However, many of the tips they share lack background context i.e. they don’t explain how they came to learn and understand the tips and tricks.
I mean — did they create the tips after trying out different activities on their current job or on a past job? Were there ever moments when the tips fell short of expectations, and why? Did they read the tips elsewhere and then decided to share them in their writing? If yes, who’s the author, and where can we read the source material?
The answers to the above questions are critical because it helps the reader to get a sense of who, what, how, when, where, and why they can apply the tips and tricks in certain scenarios.
Readers do value tips, but they also need background and context based on experience, and instructions towards understanding and applying the tips. And if you as a writer can provide these explanations — it ensures the article you write is balanced, informative, helpful, and valuble to readers.
It’s because ultimately, writing education articles is less about you as the writer. It’s about what readers need in order to learn successfully.
Writers — it’s not about you. It’s about the readers.
If you’re a writer and you submit an article to Product Coalition — please know that when we review each submission, this is what we ask ourselves as we read them:
1. Why did they write this article?
2. They want to accomplish something with this article. What is it exactly?
3. What do they [writers] expect from our community when they read it?
4. Why do they want us to publish this article? Why Product Coalition?
And sometimes, when we do reach out to writers, during our conversations we ask questions comparable to the four mentioned above.
Keep in mind, when we ask writers questions like this, it’s not because we want to specifically single them out. We ask many writers these questions.
We ask questions because we believe the writers have the potential to be great contributors, because we believe the concepts they write about are unique and worth reading. So, if we reach out to you, it means we like something about your writing.
However, we also see where the writing could be better i.e. more informative, more educational, more background context, more practical research based — and not just opinion based.
So as the writer, when you contemplate your answers to our questions as you review your article submission, we’d like for you to also earnestly ask yourself — are you submitting articles to Product Coalition that are compatible with the objective we shared earlier?
“Our top objective for ProductCoalition.com is to provide a platform for product people to report and share stories about work activities, research, and insights to the broader product management community.”
Writers, we can do better.
Product Coalition wants to help readers learn how to become successful product people. Readers want the power to build great products and services, so we want articles designed to help them to accomplish that.
To all the writers, please remember, our community can not become better, unless we commit to a sense of quality and innovation and become better at what we do. So please, let’s take seriously our commitment to learning and produce material that’s useful for everyone.
And yes, we do want writers to present their personality and have their voice, and we’ll do our best as editors to preserve and optimise that voice, but frankly — we don’t want your rants.
And we receive many submissions ladled with rants. This has to end.
A reporter prioritises objectivity and shares as many facts and observations with minimum personal bias, and respects the institutions they represent.
A pundit or commentator prioritises their observations, opinions, self interests, and their personal brand.
So please ask yourself, which type of writer are you?
To writers who may feel ambivalent or uncomfortable with what they’ve read so far, please feel free to submit your writing to another publication. Writers need platforms which are compatible with their agendas, and if you’ve concluded based on what you’ve read so far, that you’re not compatible with ProductCoalition.com — we will understand.
Now if you’re a writer who comprehends our top objective, and you’re an aspiring or successful product or business person, or a technology developer or user experience (UX) specialist, or a business analyst, designer or engineer, or just someone who believes in learning by doing and writing and collaboration — then welcome to our coalition.
To learn more about why we publish and don’t publish articles, take a look at our founder’s community publishing values.
And if you still want to write about product development and exchange lessons learned with others — join us and become a contributor. Together, let’s become great teachers and a great learning community — globally.
