[ryanobjc]

This article is a little weird to me. It seems to read fairly ok, seems pretty pro wechat, which is fine. Then I realized that the article was saying things like:

"HSBC, a bank" "BMW, a german car maker" "Goldman Sachs, an investment bank"

Which got me thinking... who is the audience for this article? Probably not the average Economist reader, who knows who HSBC, BMW and GS are. In fact they know that "GS" means Goldman Sachs in this kind of context.

It's also wildly pro-wechat, in a very boosterism way. For an editorial this would be fine, but this is pushed as news. It also cites businesses, not people, as various 'proof' points, and inconsistently uses informal and formal language in the same sentence. Most investment banks don't "reckon" about the rise of multibillion dollar firms.

As an introduction to nonfiction writing, I feel like this piece would struggle to get a C-, if not a F.

I have always understood the Economist to be a newspaper held to a different standard (self-imposed even). But this kind of stuff suggests that perhaps they are trying to infringe upon Forbes' territory.

[pradn]

Summarizing the mentioned companies, no matter how big, is a quirk of The Economist. A more notable quirk is their lack of by-lines. Presumably, multiple authors work on each article. Perhaps that's why you feel the tone is inconsistent. Or perhaps its because they write in UK English, where words have different tonal attributes.

The paper (they insist on calling themselves a newspaper, another quirk) is prone to these sorts of booster articles. Other times, they write in-depth, balanced, and informative articles from a Liberal view point. The thing that irks me most is how they casually omit criticisms from other viewpoints, but that's expected as they wear their bias on their sleeve.

[ryanobjc]

ok fair enough. I guess my expectations were out of step with the reality of their writing.

I feel like their analysis here is lacking, and I learned nothing from it. Other than some people love wechat, which is something I could have guessed.

[kartickv]

I don't know what you mean by "boosterism" (is that a US term?) but I don't see what's wrong with a pro-WeChat article if The Economist genuinely believes WeChat is amazing, or is recognising its advantages.

Not shying away from expressing opinion makes The Economist 10x more useful than other news sources, which merely report the facts, which I often know because everyone has already repeated them ad nauseam. I learn much more from reading an article in The Economist than other sources.

Regarding your other point, The Economist style guide says that writers shouldn't assume that readers already know what a given company does. Hence, "HSBC, a bank". Because there are many companies that are not familiar. Do you know what Idea is, for example? Answer: An Indian cell network.