zlacker

>>jyothi+(OP)
Even if you don't agree with The Economist, you have to admire its talent for making an argument. It's one of the few voices of reason in the global media circus; its coverage is always insightful and nearly always balanced; and, having read it, you come away with a much better understanding of the issues.

For anyone who appreciates good writing, their Style Guide is invaluable: http://www.economist.com/research/styleguide/

>>doodyh+m2
> its talent for making an argument

As usual the Economist says little with a lot of words. This particular piece is a shallow recitation of campaign impressions with zero actual policy analysis. You don't learn anything by reading it.

>>kingko+k4
Quite the contrary: it has a reputation for conciseness and well-expressed, informative views. What would you have us read instead?

To quote its Wikipedia article, 'The publication boasts a tight writing style that seeks to include the maximum amount of information in a limited space. Atlantic Monthly publisher David G. Bradley described the formula as "a consistent world view expressed, consistently, in tight and engaging prose."[12]' -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist

>>doodyh+r4
Find me one fact or analysis angle in that piece that the representative reader didn't already know. It's like getting Joe Blow's take down at the bar except with tighter prose.