Simple facts rarely convey the underlying importance of an event. The 24-hour news cycle is predicated on the idea that getting the facts out fast allows people to make their own decisions about what is important. Which is wrong-headed, both biologically and informationally. That's why I read The Economist. It's incredibly smart people, with deep experience in their areas of expertise, consuming the facts, and positioning them next to the other important considerations and in historical context. A fact alone is useless. Insight, from someone who knows the topic deeply, and can place the fact into the complex matrix of the larger issue(s), is far more valuable and useful in the long run. Plus, the Economist is just the finest news writing available in the English language. They write perfectly.
They're definitely on my list, along with a host of others. But I definitely prefer long-form. I'm not convinced they're even this altruistic. Ultimately it's about what gets the most viewers, which in turn allows the most expensive advertising. Cash is king. The 24-hour news cycle is predicated on the idea that getting the facts out fast allows people to make their own decisions about what is important.