I like the writing style of The Economist for many reasons: the most important is that it’s easy to understand their point. Writing to be understood might be an obvious requirement of a readable article, but often I find myself occupied with deciphering form instead of digesting content. Not so with the British newspaper: its writers understand that form exists only to serve content. It’s okay to internally admire one’s word choices and sentence structures, but writers should be a little less selfish in their writing, especially nonfiction.
One of the deliberate changes I made this year was to have the most important quote at the beginning of the blog post. Since the blog explores my ideas, I prefer to link to the most intriguing facets I find around. Content delivery for a newspaper is discrete from academic writing, though I have always held the belief it is unnecessarily complex. We can be better off without the never ending statistics though the entire purpose of paper is to refute or prove a “hypothesis”. The statistics and survival curves look great on “tweet-storms” or “tweetorials” but have little means to save them or provide context when seen in isolation.
I won’t lay the ground here for further ideas laid out in the linked newsletter but do explore the fascinating ideas. Providing historical context is essential.