The software industry has a concept known as “legacy code,” meaning old stuff that is left in software programs, even after they are revised and updated, so that they will still work with older operating systems. The equivalent exists in newspaper stories, which are written to accommodate readers who have just emerged from a coma or a coal mine. Who needs to be told that reforming health care (three words) involves “a sweeping overhaul of the nation’s health care system” (nine words)? Who needs to be reminded that Hillary Clinton tried this in her husband’s administration without success? Anybody who doesn’t know these things already is unlikely to care. (Is, in fact, unlikely to be reading the article.)

All told, this is a pretty subtle article, but this struck me as a really intentional design decision. Should we write newspapers for subscribers with an assumed background or for a general un-informed audience? The “previously, in the Senate” style constant recapping is something we don’t see much in blogs, where writers assume a more engaged and niche audience. Hypertext as a medium is an important component, too - if you need background, it’s easy to find it elsewhere in a blog. But in print, that’s not practical so every article needs to stand more or less on its own.

Also — legacy code as a metaphor? I mean, I love it, but I’m shocked that made it through editing without getting turned into something more broadly accessible.