Why “The Economist” is working…
When Time and Newsweek and traditional newsweeklies are barely surviving, Michael Hirschorn at The Atlantic (a monthly that I hope is doing okay) looks at why The Economist is thriving. Excerpts:
The easy lesson might be that quality wins out. The Economist is truly a remarkable invention—a weekly newspaper, as it calls itself, that canvasses the globe with an assurance that no one else can match. Where else, really, can you actually keep up with Africa? But even as The Economist signals its gravitas with every strenuously reader-unfriendly page, it has never been quite as brilliant as its more devoted fans would have the rest of us believe. (Though, one must add, nor is it as shallow as its detractors would tell you it is.)
SNIP
The Economist prides itself on cleverly distilling the world into a reasonably compact survey. Another word for this is blogging, or at least what blogging might be after it matures—meaning, after it transcends its current status as a free-fire zone and settles into a more comprehensive system of gathering and presenting information. As a result, although its self-marketing subtly sells a kind of sleek, mid-last-century Concorde-flying sangfroid, The Economist has reached its current level of influence and importance because it is, in every sense of the word, a true global digest for an age when the amount of undigested, undigestible information online continues to metastasize. And that’s a very good place to be in 2009.
Hat tip: ALDaily
David Gibson,
A most interesting analysis. As an on-and-off reader of The Economist – more off than on in the last few years – I think there are many insights in this article to recommend. You already quoted one; another is quoted below.
BTW, for non-readers of the magazine, open a copy & you shall see that its writers are anonymous. That’s right, you shall find no personal names on top or at the end of an article, even in book reviews. This has been a tradition in the magazine, which still matters more to the British elites. (The magazine was founded in the 19th century when Britain was at the height of its imperial power. It must be among the longest continuous magazines today.) As you read it, you are apt to find a more or less uniform voice in the articles. A rara avis of newsmagazines.
Take a look at TOC of the latest issue & you’d note a distribution of geographical topics more even-handed than most other major newsmagazines.
http://www.economist.com/printedition/
—
True, The Economist virtually never gets scoops, and the information it does provide is available elsewhere … if you care to spend 20 hours Googling. But now that information is infinitely replicable and pervasive, original reporting will never again receive its due. The real value of The Economist lies in its smart analysis of everything it deems worth knowing—and smart packaging, which may be the last truly unique attribute in the digital age.
One more. The Economist may be the only newsmagazine that has a style guide to writing.
http://www.economist.com/research/styleguide/
Click on “journalese and slang” & you’ll see the following:
Politicians are often said to be highly visible, when conspicuous would be more appropriate. Regulations are sometimes said to be designed to create transparency, which presumably means openness. Governance usually means government. Elections described as too close to call are usually just close.
Try not to be predictable, especially predictably jocular. Spare your readers any mention of mandarins when writing about the civil service, of their lordships when discussing the House of Lords, and of comrades when analysing communist parties. Must all lawns be manicured? Are drug traffickers inevitably barons?
–
Or, click on “Americanisms” which commences:
If you use Americanisms just to show you know them, people may find you a tad tiresome, so be discriminating. Many American words and expressions have passed into the language; others have vigour, particularly if used sparingly. Some are short and to the point (so prefer lay off to make redundant). But many are unnecessarily long (so use and not additionally, car not automobile, company not corporation, court not courtroom or courthouse, transport not transportation, district not neighbourhood, oblige not obligate, rocket not skyrocket, stocks not inventories unless there is the risk of confusion with stocks and shares). Spat and scam, two words beloved by some journalists, have the merit of brevity, but so do row and fraud; squabble and swindle might sometimes be used instead. The military, used as a noun, is nearly always better put as the army. Gubernatorial is an ugly word that can almost always be avoided.
—
There’s a lot here, but why “gubernatorial” an ugly word that should be avoided? :)