that's why I put not-immediate-money driven in the "writers" section, not the ycombinator/startup section. reading? Yes journalism and creative writing are not

that's why I put not-immediate-money driven in the "writers" section, not the ycombinator/startup section. reading? Yes journalism and creative writing are not the same - so why did the article refer to them as "New Yorker style"? My goal in my comment was to point out that for many New Yorker style pieces of writing, journalism and creative writing blends and cross polinates at that level - for example, Ernest Hemmingway is probably one of the best know "creative writing" novelists - but he is also a journalist for the Toronto Star churning out war stories day in day out. Why does the New Yorker always seem to have the most well written articles and a more nuanced team of editors? Perhaps because the editors don't treat journalism and creative writing any different from the viewpoint of standards. Any good piece of publishable journalism must stand on its own as a piece of creative non-fiction as well. The writer must be writing creatively, as well as journalistically. We're not trying to fill an about.com article here, neither are we writing a blurb that will go in tomorrow's paper. That's how you get Pulitzer winning articles. And that's what's missing in the popular debate about long-form journalism. Everyone talks about journalism, the gathering of news, the interviews. No one talks about advancing the state of writing, using a new point of view in writing about the news, using different words, tenses, perspectives, metaphors and writing techniques. Even though many people want to divorce the two, they go together, hand in hand. Textual journalism without the skill of writing is boring. And we have a lot of boring writers out there. Sara's article just pointed that out. She should learn to write better :)