Two stand-out features of The Economist I'd like to see emulated more:
1. No separation of op-ed from news reporting. Just-the-facts-Ma'am reporting isn't objective, it just plays coy games with selective quotes and straw-men. It's dishonest and, worse, it's wordy.
2. No signatures on articles, whether written by one person or the entire staff. The text is boldly honest, without worrying the author might never work again for saying the wrong thing. The paper itself holds the opinions, which lean different directions in different decades. This is okay.
Most blogs and have the first item down pat. But the second is rare, despite the easy collaborative editing that modern blogware offers, and the benefit of pseudo-anonymity for amateurs who can't keep a perpetually diplomatic tongue. A platform that nudges its community in this direction might be all that's needed.
1. No separation of op-ed from news reporting. Just-the-facts-Ma'am reporting isn't objective, it just plays coy games with selective quotes and straw-men. It's dishonest and, worse, it's wordy.
2. No signatures on articles, whether written by one person or the entire staff. The text is boldly honest, without worrying the author might never work again for saying the wrong thing. The paper itself holds the opinions, which lean different directions in different decades. This is okay.
Most blogs and have the first item down pat. But the second is rare, despite the easy collaborative editing that modern blogware offers, and the benefit of pseudo-anonymity for amateurs who can't keep a perpetually diplomatic tongue. A platform that nudges its community in this direction might be all that's needed.
(Just another company I'm too lazy to start.)