I like the format! Organized, short and informative. I like the graphics you choose to use as well. Knowing when to do a deep dive is a skill to have, as a journalist and a reader. Good job, Gabe!
I far prefer your other format. Summaries of the news are easy to come by, but your deep dives are uniquely accessible and especially valuable for their context and non-partisan flavor. I have always found the time it takes to read them time well-spent.
This format would be okay occasionally… say, one (at most two) days a week. I would miss your focus on deeply educating your readership on the nuances of a story. Quality over quantity is your differentiator in the market of journalism.
Adding this after reading other comments. I recognize now there may be times when a deep dive feels forced or unnatural and the quality doesn’t hit the mark, either because the topic was meh or your energy was low. I’d rather get a zoomed out list like this than nothing in that case.
Whatever format fits the moment is good, Gabe. I do like that I can always hear your "voice" no matter the organization of the material. Thanks for asking and being willing to grow and change.
I could have, and did, read most of this in the New York Times. Please stick with your in-depth analysis, and especially, your Sunday answers to reader questions.
Great format. Sometimes your column drags too long. In depth is great, just not every day. I read your column for in-depth analysis, but it sometimes feels like a movie that is too long.
I like the format! Organized, short and informative. I like the graphics you choose to use as well. Knowing when to do a deep dive is a skill to have, as a journalist and a reader. Good job, Gabe!
Thanks, Jessica!
I hadn’t considered that scenario where a forced deep dive would have been better avoided and replaced with a broader zoom out.
I far prefer your other format. Summaries of the news are easy to come by, but your deep dives are uniquely accessible and especially valuable for their context and non-partisan flavor. I have always found the time it takes to read them time well-spent.
Thanks, Deborah — that’s helpful to hear.
This format would be okay occasionally… say, one (at most two) days a week. I would miss your focus on deeply educating your readership on the nuances of a story. Quality over quantity is your differentiator in the market of journalism.
Adding this after reading other comments. I recognize now there may be times when a deep dive feels forced or unnatural and the quality doesn’t hit the mark, either because the topic was meh or your energy was low. I’d rather get a zoomed out list like this than nothing in that case.
Thanks for the feedback, Brian!
Whatever format fits the moment is good, Gabe. I do like that I can always hear your "voice" no matter the organization of the material. Thanks for asking and being willing to grow and change.
Enjoyed today’s info. Maybe a couple of days a week. Sometimes I don’t have time to read whole in depth articles.
Good to know, Gina! Thanks!
I could have, and did, read most of this in the New York Times. Please stick with your in-depth analysis, and especially, your Sunday answers to reader questions.
Great format. Sometimes your column drags too long. In depth is great, just not every day. I read your column for in-depth analysis, but it sometimes feels like a movie that is too long.
Keep up the good work!
God bless Texas! Now do Massachusetts and California.