Is extremely frustrating.
It sucks to have to explain something in its entirety at the expense of analysis due to space and it’s so difficult to reconcile information and knowledge in such a small space. Earlier this week, the blog editor from the LA Times gave a talk. He said, “Think of a blog as a newspaper with unlimited space.” — This is why I love and appreciate the blogging platform so much. At the same time, I appreciate a succinct explanation. After all, what’s knowledge if it’s not understood? BUT, what’s knowledge if it’s sacrificed to explain the surface information? Ugh.
Twitter’s laconic; journalism lengthy.
Must. find. balance.
————
I’ll post the unedited version of my Twitter article once it comes out. I had to change the comparison I made between Twitter and salons in 18th century France. Exciting stuff. Look out for it on Tuesday. 
I think the problem you’re facing has as much to do with the intended audience of the material as the length of it. If you were writing in a trade publication, you could skip the surface information and write an article that can fit in a small space. If you were writing a blog about economics for the White House, you’d have to include a lot of surface information because you’re writing to people of varying expertise in the subject.
Thanks for the comments — I guess I should’ve emphasized the “Writing for the masses” snippet. Newspaper writing is VERY different than magazine/periodical writing, IMO. I’d prefer to skip a lot of the surface info, but alas, I write for a college publication and don’t have that luxury sometimes.