Listen: I have a hard time believing that I subscribe to and read the Economist every week. I’m a word person, not a numbers person; I don’t even balance my checkbooks. My eyes glaze over when I encounter more than a few numbers at a time.

But a friend started passing on his issues, and this English teacher became hooked, not by the numbers but by the exquisite use of language; the end result is hours of delightful reading and a healthy respect for economic principles (although I don’t usually agree with their underlying politics and philosophy. Never mind that. The technical writing is superb.)

What’s a nice English major like me doing reading the Economist? I read it for the following reasons:

First, the Economist provides an objective, celebrity-free overview of United States’ culture, economy, and politics. The magazine seems to have enough detachment to report a wide and careful view of American events without the celebrity awe and superficial gossip of American media. I’d have to read a lot more major journals, magazines, and newspapers to get the same amount of information so, well, economically.

Second, when they’re not objective, their irony and humor are unmistakable. In the “On the campaign trail: Primary colour” section, the selections are mostly ironic. Barack Obama is quoted as saying “I know that folks were riffling through my kindergarten papers. I’m going to be disclosing them tomorrow. It will show that I experimented with colouring outside the lines. I was pulling on pigtails,” his response to the Clinton campaign’s criticizing his kindergarten ambitions to be president. (Note the British spelling.)

Finally, most paragraphs start with a clearly spelled-out topic sentence that leads into supporting detail. For example, in a special report on religion and public life entitled “In God’s Name” (November 3, 2007), the introduction ends with this paragraph:
“This special report is an attempt to tease out these [religious] conflicts. It comes with three health warnings. First, many numbers in religion are dodgy: most churches inflate their support and many governments do not record religion in their censuses…. Second, in a field where many believers claim to know all the answers, it poses mainly questions. And lastly, given the emotion the subject arouses, the chances are that some of what follows will offend you.” (page 5)

The article goes on to elaborate on the first, second, and third point in a very organized way.

I receive no money from the Economist for writing this;  I merely want to share a great resource. I firmly believe that reading good technical writing assists people to be better technical writers.