Hello, everyone. I thought this article in today's NYT 'Europe’s Banks Found Safety of Bonds a Costly Illusion' is an excellent example of how to explain a complex, somewhat technical topic in a way that is understandable for the average reader, without insulting or talking down to the reader.
Reporters Liz Alderman & Susanne Craig methodically explain the parallels of the current euro debt crisis to the mortgage debt crisis that began in U.S. a few years ago. European banks have invested billions in the bonds issued by eurozone economies such as Greece, assuming those investments to be “bulletproof.” But, as we all know by now, Greece & other shaky economies of Europe (the PIGS) are hugely over-extended and unable to pay back those obligations. The banks are being forced to swallow huge losses on these bond investments. If these banks continue to lose billions on their bond holdings in other countries, such as Italy, Spain, & Portugal, the solvency of the banks themselves is threatened. If major European banks fail, the euro debt crisis becomes a worldwide financial crisis.
Alderman & Craig have obviously done their homework, to the point that they can explain the intricacies of the current financial crisis for the layman, without being patronizing. This a basic, central skill that we must all come to have: to translate our deeper knowledge of a topic which we have researched, in plain, clear language that the average reader can easily comprehend.
Later, Jim
Good eye for a post on this subject. It's an excellent read. And you are spot on in your analysis.
ReplyDeleteWith tongue planted in cheek, I'll repeat what I tell authors and remind myself when I stumble: "avoid pedestrian, pompous, and patronizing constructions that are wordy and utilize a Euro word where a mere U.S. Dollar word will do. Avoid run on sentences that would confuse Faulkner. Only English majors really know how to use punctuation. Why play their game?"
Quoting Nobel physicist Richard Feynman, "People and politicians don't have any more idea what (scientists) are trying to do than the peasants in Italy knew what Galileo was up to." It's a writers job to explain.
But because of the lack of testability and consensus, writing on economics and other "soft" sciences can be brutally difficult.
IMHO, the trick is to keep it simple -- but not to devolve to inaccurate comparisons or examples. We MUST challenge the audience -- but also respect the audience. We need to build logically. As writers we need to walk with the audience and learn a subject together. It's okay to push readers, just not over on their faces.
Einstein said it best: "
"Make things as simple as possible but no simpler."
Cheers, Lee