<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Economist style and business writing</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.badlanguage.net/economist-style-and-business-writing/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.badlanguage.net/economist-style-and-business-writing</link>
	<description>How to communicate</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 22 Nov 2008 12:18:54 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Business Writing</title>
		<link>http://www.badlanguage.net/economist-style-and-business-writing#comment-392028</link>
		<dc:creator>Business Writing</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Apr 2008 07:05:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badlanguage.net/?p=450#comment-392028</guid>
		<description>How a custom business writing can help business. I know that a good writing can grow a business. But till now i dont understand actually what is a business writing. I heard a lot about the effective , business plan writing etc..</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>How a custom business writing can help business. I know that a good writing can grow a business. But till now i dont understand actually what is a business writing. I heard a lot about the effective , business plan writing etc..</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michel John</title>
		<link>http://www.badlanguage.net/economist-style-and-business-writing#comment-385995</link>
		<dc:creator>Michel John</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:22:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badlanguage.net/?p=450#comment-385995</guid>
		<description>Business writing is unique in the field of science writing. It is distinguished from other forms of composition as a whole emphasis on the opportunity. The centre of gravity of the composition of a business unit should be effective to the offer in writing and as precisely as possible to a central objective in the area covered by the justification of this goal, and that the appeal to the sentiments of your listeners.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Business writing is unique in the field of science writing. It is distinguished from other forms of composition as a whole emphasis on the opportunity. The centre of gravity of the composition of a business unit should be effective to the offer in writing and as precisely as possible to a central objective in the area covered by the justification of this goal, and that the appeal to the sentiments of your listeners.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Seekersdigest.org &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Occasional Use of Informal Language May Be Good, Even in Formal Writing - the (new) legal writer: If it’s good enough for The Economist,&#8230;</title>
		<link>http://www.badlanguage.net/economist-style-and-business-writing#comment-124103</link>
		<dc:creator>Seekersdigest.org &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Occasional Use of Informal Language May Be Good, Even in Formal Writing - the (new) legal writer: If it’s good enough for The Economist,&#8230;</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 May 2007 17:15:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badlanguage.net/?p=450#comment-124103</guid>
		<description>[...] Stibbe has written an interesting post about The Economist’s occasional use of informal language. His conclusion: “[T]here is room in [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Stibbe has written an interesting post about The Economist’s occasional use of informal language. His conclusion: “[T]here is room in [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peter McArthur</title>
		<link>http://www.badlanguage.net/economist-style-and-business-writing#comment-122328</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter McArthur</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 May 2007 15:27:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badlanguage.net/?p=450#comment-122328</guid>
		<description>Writing in the most formal register is like wearing a suit and tie.

The difference between The Economist and one of your clients is that The Economist has nothing to prove, so it can loosen its tie.  Maybe even let itself be spotted in designer jeans and a turtle neck.  (Think "photo captions".)

:-)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Writing in the most formal register is like wearing a suit and tie.</p>
<p>The difference between The Economist and one of your clients is that The Economist has nothing to prove, so it can loosen its tie.  Maybe even let itself be spotted in designer jeans and a turtle neck.  (Think &#8220;photo captions&#8221;.)</p>
<p> <img src='http://www.badlanguage.net/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':-)' class='wp-smiley' /></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Bradley</title>
		<link>http://www.badlanguage.net/economist-style-and-business-writing#comment-122135</link>
		<dc:creator>David Bradley</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 May 2007 11:37:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badlanguage.net/?p=450#comment-122135</guid>
		<description>I reckon you're right "The Economist it is surprisingly playful and often uses informal, arresting language to make its point." I did quite a few science stories many years ago, and always the brief was to bring in some kind of personal spin that would make the article as you describe. I try to do the same with my Sciencebase ramblings to this day, although the Flesch-Kincaid grading (or one of those things) tells me my words are closer to Newsweek!

db</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I reckon you&#8217;re right &#8220;The Economist it is surprisingly playful and often uses informal, arresting language to make its point.&#8221; I did quite a few science stories many years ago, and always the brief was to bring in some kind of personal spin that would make the article as you describe. I try to do the same with my Sciencebase ramblings to this day, although the Flesch-Kincaid grading (or one of those things) tells me my words are closer to Newsweek!</p>
<p>db</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nick</title>
		<link>http://www.badlanguage.net/economist-style-and-business-writing#comment-122013</link>
		<dc:creator>Nick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 May 2007 10:26:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badlanguage.net/?p=450#comment-122013</guid>
		<description>Or even '...better for it.' :-)

I agree entirely. Reading the odd colloquial word in a serious context is not just more entertaining, and therefore engaging, but demonstrates self-confidence by the writer. Cool.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Or even &#8216;&#8230;better for it.&#8217; <img src='http://www.badlanguage.net/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':-)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>I agree entirely. Reading the odd colloquial word in a serious context is not just more entertaining, and therefore engaging, but demonstrates self-confidence by the writer. Cool.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Zach Everson</title>
		<link>http://www.badlanguage.net/economist-style-and-business-writing#comment-121967</link>
		<dc:creator>Zach Everson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 May 2007 09:59:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badlanguage.net/?p=450#comment-121967</guid>
		<description>The Economist does an excellent job of making dry subjects more interesting by varying the language it uses. I usually get a few laughs out of each issue.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Economist does an excellent job of making dry subjects more interesting by varying the language it uses. I usually get a few laughs out of each issue.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
