Paul Vale and his 3-word article

Not being a journalist I don’t know what the going rate for an article is, but it seems that you can get paid for writing just about anything, including hardly anything as this recent masterpiece by Huffington Post’s Paul Vale shows.


Has it really then, Paul? Thanks for letting me know. Good to keep it simple, yeah? We don’t want too many words that could easily go over peoples heads. Even cbeebies would do a better job explaining the “what” behind the “has”, the “who” behind the “it” and the suggested “doubt” behind the use of “really”.

I thought this was a little strange, even suggesting to HP that they’d posted the wrong link. Surely 3 words and a pass off to GQ magazine couldn’t be considered a piece of journalism? It’s hardly even a tweet it’s that laconic.Was it a bad link?


Oh…well maybe it was just me and my silly expectation of more than three words.


Yes I wasn’t alone, and another described it as:

"Possibly one of the most succint [sic] articles ever written."

But as long as he’s not getting paid for this we shouldn’t really complain.


Whatever way you look at it, it’s going to be a comfort to aspiring journalists everywhere. Forget word-count quotas; stick to the 3-word rule, 33% of which being a pass-off to another site, and then you’re winning.

Here’s what I’m going to submit to The Huffington Post:

"Go to Digg

Money in the bank

paul vale huffington post three word articles