The Economist: Substantive Brevity
One of five posters advertising the publication in the London Underground.
In an age of tabloid hacking scandals, media sensationalism, and a 24-hour news cycle, reliable journalism can seem extinct at worst, suspicious at best. The beauty and ease of a more open society also comes with Twitter rabbit holes and exhaustive Huffingtonian linkage. Primary sources have become well-hidden relics. But fortunately, there is a bright beacon of trustworthiness amidst a sea of dim news sources. What’s most remarkable is that the publication in subject earns its reputation through concept as much as content.
The Economist’s approach is to report with substantive brevity. And though it’s not breaking news that The Economist — a worldwide weekly news magazine — is a great publication, it is worth noting that they’ve succeeded not by catchy headlines or the best 140 characters, but by good writing.
Pithy in Practice, Grand in the Game
When corresponding with a colleague, playwright Tennessee Williams once famously wrote, “I apologize for the great length of this letter. I didn’t have the time to make it short.” In writing, the best kind of brevity takes patient diligence. This makes it even harder for deadline-crunched news organizations that must also serve short attention spans. Few are able to accomplish both thorough, concise reporting and nuanced intellect.
Somehow, The Economist achieves both without sounding reductionist. Even their lead articles are less than a page long. Their reports are in touch with everything from the cultural zeitgeist to global politics to local government and everything in between. One week’s feature might be on technology (see “Print me a Stradivarius” from 2/10/11 for a mind bend), the next week on religion’s role in the Arab Spring (see “Islam and the Arab Revolutions” from 4/2/11).
Perhaps they hire well and simply accrue the most talented editors out there. Again, the publication’s solid reputation is no secret. But what else sets them apart? What philosophy is at the bedrock of their success?
A Philosophy of Contribution on a Field of End-Zone Celebrations
Amidst the melee of modern journalism’s shifts, The Economist has stayed true to a mission statement that would appear fantastical to those disheartened by today’s media. On the front pages of each issue you’ll find a small quote that states, “First published in 1843 to take part in ‘a severe contest between intelligence, which presses forward, and an unworthy, timid ignorance obstructing our progress.’” This tells you nothing about their position and everything about their approach. It wins the impossible debate surrounding journalistic objectivism by valuing winsome contribution over needless victory. Quite a change from the hefty claims of “fair and balanced” or “worldwide leader in news.”
So is the Platonic fight for reason and intelligence objective enough? Is there a bit of an agenda tucked in there somewhere? Of course. But The Economist’s virtuosity shines, again, in their philosophy: they are intellectually honest enough to admit that their only partiality is for free markets.
On their “About” web page, you’ll find a more specific mission where they elaborate their ambidextrous ideology stating, “What, besides free trades and free markets, does The Economist believe in?” followed by a fitting quote from past editor, Geoffrey Crowther: “It is to the Radicals that The Economist still likes to think of itself as belonging. The extreme centre is the paper’s historical position.”
To those who would call the magazine liberal, they would explain that they backed Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and American involvement in Vietnam and Iraq. To those who would call them conservative, they would tout their support of public health programs, gun control, and the legalization of drugs and prostitution. They once published an obituary for God. They consider themselves “the enemy of privilege, pomposity, and predictability.” Each new opinion seems to be weighed on its own merits. The writing seeks to stretch the reader’s IQ with an ongoing dialogue that is constantly assessing the worldview they possess.
A philosophy of contribution yields integrity. To strive for personal accountability is to mind the common good. With this, The Economist is both individualistic and communitarian. Apparently that’s possible.
A Splotch in Their Scheme?
Some argue that this ideological balancing act gives them an unwarranted guise of neutrality (their authors are anonymous). Others think they are free-market-loving to a fault. A friend recently told me that he stopped reading The Economist because he felt the free market favoritism was making him less compassionate. In America — whether liberal or conservative — that’s a rare remark, but a valid one.
It’s true that The Economist has the advantage of ideological popularity. Western society largely reveres free market systems and democracy mainly because they have historically led to prosperity in the West. But this success requires a more careful footing, as there is an occasional air of superiority that can taint The Economist’s arguments (see the snooty and pun-laced “Anthony Weiner: So ends a Cocky Tale” from 6/16/11).
I’ve taken the liberty — perhaps foolishly — to equally chide and venerate their by-the-numbers article structure by modeling it here (see above): A main headline followed by a few clever subheadings to remind their audience that they are clear as much as they are cool. But again, this guidepost format does work, especially as a concession to our “ADD culture,” and shows that the limits of short attention spans are a bit of a myth. Even with the densest ideas, attention can be held, so long as the idea is delivered with clarity, nuance, and substance.
The Economist can be snobbish. Some past ads have stated, “Get used to not having an argument,” “Stop having to remind people who you are,” and “You can so tell people who like don’t read The Economist.” But that’s a tattoo they’re going to regret. To stay in line with their philosophy, all signs would indicate that humility would give The Economist better marketing returns in the long run.
Still, The Economist’s virtues far outweigh its flaws. As a news source, they are trustworthy to say the least. As a model for writing and argument, they are top of the line. As an institution, their philosophy could serve to teach us all a few things about how and why we consume and disseminate information. If what you’re reading seems lavishly excessive, forgive the irony. My required length was 1,000 words, minimum.