Guide to Tech Journalists: Who They Are and How to Pitch Them

Last reviewed: August 2026. Justin Mauldin — Founder, Salient PR. Salient runs earned media programmes for technology companies, which is why we keep these lists in the first place.

Most published lists of tech journalists are wrong, and they are wrong in the same way every time: reporters move, and nobody re-checks. A round-up written eighteen months ago files someone at an outlet they have since left, the next round-up copies it, and the error outlives the job. The version of this page we replaced did exactly that — it had a well-known editor at TechCrunch who has been running AI coverage at The New Stack for some time.

So this one is built from a different source. The 87 people below come off our own working media lists, which were researched in March 2026 and which we use — everybody here has since been sent a real email at a deliverable address. That is the check that matters, and it is not one you can do by scraping.

Every entry was checked against a dated source rather than a profile page, because a profile page tells you where somebody worked, not where they work. That check moved three people to different mastheads and removed three more — two who left journalism altogether and one whose current outlet we could not confirm. Our own lists were right more often than the things we checked them against, which is the argument for keeping your own.

What is deliberately not here: who replied to us, when we pitched them, or what they said. That is a working relationship, and publishing it would be a strange way to respect it.

On this page

• Key Takeaways
• What their day actually looks like
• Beats, and why getting this right is most of the job
• Who covers what
• Building a list that is actually yours
• What our own data says about pitching
• Being useful when you want nothing
• The mistakes we see most
• The shift our own list is evidence for
• Summary
• Frequently Asked Questions
• What our outreach data shows

Key Takeaways

• Reporters are filed by beat, not by masthead — matching the beat matters more than the size of the outlet.
• Published lists go stale because journalists move and nobody re-checks; every roster has a shelf life, including this one.
• The names below come off the media lists we pitch from, and everyone on them has been sent a real email at a working address.

What their day actually looks like

Understanding why your pitch does not get answered is mostly understanding the other side of the inbox.

A reporter on a technology beat is filing regularly, often daily, against a story count. They are reading a few hundred pitches a week, nearly all of which are irrelevant to them specifically. They are also maintaining their own sources, which is the part of the job that produces the stories they actually want to write.

Two consequences worth internalising. Your pitch is competing for about four seconds of attention, so the subject line and the first sentence are the entire pitch. And a reporter who does not answer has usually not rejected you — they have not read it. In our own records the recorded open rate is 51%, and even correcting for blocked tracking pixels roughly three in ten pitches are never seen at all.

Beats, and why getting this right is most of the job

A beat is the specific territory a reporter owns. It is narrower than the outlet and narrower than the section. Somebody covering AI infrastructure is not the right person for an AI policy story, even though both are AI and both are at the same publication.

Getting this wrong is the most common reason a good pitch fails, and it is entirely preventable. The single most useful thing you can do before sending anything is read the last six months of what somebody wrote — not their bio, their bylines. A bio describes the job they were hired for; the bylines show the job they are doing.

The main technology beats, roughly: AI and machine learning, which has absorbed an enormous share of coverage; semiconductors and hardware; enterprise software and cloud; cybersecurity; startups and venture; consumer products; and the business desks that cover technology companies as companies rather than as technology. The roster below is organised the same way.

Who covers what

Grouped by what they actually write about rather than by outlet, because the beat is what decides whether your story is theirs. Titles are as the outlet itself gives them.

AI and machine learning

Semiconductors, hardware and data centres

Enterprise, cloud and developer tools

Startups and venture capital

Business desks and broadcast

Analysts and independent writers

Not staff reporters, and pitched differently — they are writing analysis rather than covering news. Worth knowing because they set the terms other coverage borrows.

Two caveats, and they apply to ours as much as anyone's. This is a starting point, not a media list — a real one is built for one specific story and is usually much shorter. And it decays: we re-check ours because we work from it, and it still drifted between building this page and publishing it. If you are reading this a year from now, assume some of it has moved.

Building a list that is actually yours

A list you bought is not a list. Here is the version that works, and it is deliberately small.

• Start from stories, not people. Find the five articles most similar to the one you want written. Whoever wrote them is your list.
• Check they still work there. Reporters move constantly. Their recent bylines tell you; a database from last year does not.
• Read what they wrote this month. You are looking for the angle they keep returning to.
• Stop at twenty. A list of twenty people you have read beats a list of four hundred you have not, and it is the difference between a pitch that gets answered and one that does not.

Then maintain it. Ours is checked continuously because we work from it, and it still goes out of date — two people on the roster below moved jobs between the research and this page being published.

What our own data says about pitching

From our outreach between December 2025 and August 2026, and the 37 reporters we can time precisely.

Three things follow, and one of them we had wrong until we recounted.

The first email does most of the work. About three in five of the reporters who answered did so to the first one. Follow-ups earn their place, but a five-step sequence is mostly four emails to people who already decided.

A week is not the window. We used to say that silence at seven days meant no. It does not: 54% of replies arrive later than that, some of them months later. The distribution has two humps — fast answers inside a couple of days, then a second group that surfaces after two or three weeks — and nothing much between them.

A yes is not rare. Nearly two-thirds of the replies we can grade are positive. The hard part is being read, which is a targeting problem rather than a persuasion one.

Being useful when you want nothing

The relationships that produce coverage are built when you are not asking for anything, which is inconvenient because it means the work has to happen before you need it.

Concretely: answer a query fast even when the story is not about you. Point a reporter at somebody better placed to comment, including a competitor, when that is the truth. Tell them when you are wrong about something you told them before. Send the correction before they need to print one.

This is not a technique, and it stops working the moment it is performed as one. But it is the actual mechanism, and it explains why programmes take six to ten weeks to produce anything — the first month is spent becoming a person the reporter recognises.

The mistakes we see most

Pitching the wrong beat. Still the biggest one by a distance, and the easiest to fix. A pitch to somebody who stopped covering that subject eighteen months ago is not bad luck; it is nobody having checked.

Leading with the company. The first sentence should be the thing that happened or the thing that is now true, not who you are.

Embargo confusion. Sending an embargo without agreeing it first is not an embargo, it is an instruction, and reporters are entitled to ignore it.

Following up too much. Not because they have decided — half of all replies reach us more than a week out. Because a fourth chase is a cost to a relationship you will want later, and the reporters most worth having are the ones most likely to be buried.

Treating a decline as a failure. A reporter saying no to this story while telling you what they would cover is the most useful email you will get all quarter.

The shift our own list is evidence for

Something visible in the roster below, which we did not set out to demonstrate: a meaningful share of the people worth pitching no longer work at a masthead.

Three on this list run their own publications. A former Fortune AI reporter left in June 2026 to launch Ground Level AI. A columnist of thirty years publishes The Technology Letter and contributes to ZDNET on the side. And the most-read analysis of AI silicon comes from SemiAnalysis, which is not a newsroom at all. None of them has a section editor; all of them are read by exactly the audience a semiconductor company cares about.

Two practical consequences. Outlet prestige is a worse proxy for reach than it used to be — a newsletter with a few thousand engaged readers in your category can be worth more than a general-interest piece. And these people are easier to reach, because there is no desk between you and them, while also being harder to convince: their subscribers are the whole business, so a weak pitch costs them more than it costs a staff reporter.

AI is changing the production side too, mostly in data-heavy analysis and summarisation rather than in reporting. It has not changed what a reporter needs from a source, which is a specific fact nobody else has.

Summary

Reporters are not gatekeepers to be managed. They are people with a beat, a deadline, and far more pitches than they can read. Get the beat right and most of the rest looks after itself; get it wrong and nothing else you do matters, however well written it is. That is why this page is organised by what people cover rather than by how famous the masthead is.

Frequently Asked Questions

How do I find contact information for tech journalists?

Use professional media databases like Cision, Muck Rack, or Prowly, which provide comprehensive journalist contact information and beat assignments. You can also find contact details through journalists’ social media profiles, publication websites, or by calling media outlets directly.

What makes a tech story newsworthy to journalists?

Newsworthy tech stories typically involve significant innovation, substantial data or research findings, major business developments, regulatory implications, or broader societal impact. Stories should offer something new, exclusive, or provide unique insights into industry trends.

How far in advance should I pitch tech journalists for product launches?

For major announcements, begin outreach 1-2 weeks in advance for daily publications and 2-4 weeks for monthly magazines. This timeline allows journalists to plan coverage while maintaining newsworthiness. Consider embargo arrangements for coordinated coverage.

Do tech journalists prefer email pitches or phone calls?

Most technology journalists prefer initial contact via email, which allows them to review information at their convenience and forward relevant details to colleagues. Reserve phone calls for established relationships or urgent breaking news situations.

What information should I include in my initial pitch to tech journalists?

Include a compelling subject line, concise story summary, key data points, availability of expert sources for interviews, supporting materials (images, data, research), and clear contact information. Keep initial pitches brief but comprehensive.

How do I know if a journalist covers my specific area of technology?

Research their recent bylines and article topics through publication websites, Google searches, and media databases. Follow their social media activity to understand current interests and coverage patterns. Look for consistent coverage of your industry or related technologies.

What’s the best time of day and week to pitch tech journalists?

Tuesday is the strongest day in our own send data by a wide margin, and Thursday is the weakest. The day of the week mattered considerably more than the time of day.

How do I handle negative coverage from tech journalists?

Respond professionally and promptly with factual corrections if needed. Provide additional context or data that addresses concerns raised in coverage. Maintain relationships even after negative coverage, as perceptions can change over time.

Should I offer exclusives to tech journalists, and how do I choose who gets them?

Exclusives can significantly increase coverage likelihood and quality. Choose based on outlet reach, journalist influence in your industry, and alignment with your target audience. Honor exclusive commitments strictly to maintain credibility.

What follow-up strategy works best with tech journalists?

Send one polite follow-up email 3-5 days after initial outreach. If no response, wait at least a week before additional contact. Focus on providing additional value or updates rather than simply asking for status updates.

If you want this run by people who do it every day — Salient PR is a technology PR agency. See how we work or start a conversation.

What our outreach data shows

We maintain 1,750 reporters under active verification, and 119 distinct outlets have replied to us. Our bounce rate was 1.0% with zero unsubscribes — both list-hygiene numbers rather than tooling ones.

Source: Salient PR outreach database, December 2025 – August 2026.

Related reading

• HARO in 2026: What's Actually Live, and Whether It's Worth Your Time
• Media Training: Why the Full-Day Group Session Is the Wrong Format
• Media List Template: The Columns That Matter and the One Rule That Decides Everything
• Media Relations: What the Job Actually Involves