Lane Greene on Breaking Into Journalism, Becoming “the Language Guy,” and Writing Clearly

Lane Greene is a senior digital editor and style chief at The Economist, and one of the few journalists writing regularly about language with a grounding in linguistics. A Tulane graduate and Marshall Scholar, Greene has spent more than twenty years at the magazine, beginning during the dot-com boom and eventually becoming known for his work on writing, culture, and the science of language. In this conversation for The Pathway Blog, he speaks with Ben Wolf about breaking into journalism without connections, his path from writing about politics and elections to language and linguistics, and developing a beat without pigeonholing yourself. Greene also dives into the cultural nuances he learned studying at Oxford, what separates a story from a topic, and why AI cannot—by definition—do real journalism.
​
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Early Career and Breaking In
BW: Mr. Greene, thanks so much for taking the time to speak with me, I really appreciate it. For those who may not be familiar with your career path, how would you describe it to them?
LG: Happy to. I’m always glad to talk about this because I didn’t come from a world where anyone did journalism. My dad worked for GE, my mom worked for the Social Security Administration, and growing up in Atlanta meant I wasn't anywhere near a media hub. Some people come out of New York or Washington knowing dozens of people in journalism or politics or publishing. If you don’t come from that world, it can feel completely opaque.
At Tulane, a group of friends and I ended up creating a humor magazine called Brouhaha. We were refugees from the Hullabaloo and wanted something irreverent and satirical. The whole thing was basically made up—fake news, absurd sketches. We interviewed random New Orleanians and anyone interesting who came to campus. If a musician or actor came to speak, we’d request an interview, and more often than not they’d say yes. That magazine was where we learned how to write, edit, and make each other laugh—and funny enough, a remarkable number of us ended up in journalism.
After Tulane, I went to Oxford as a Marshall Scholar and did a master’s in European politics. My undergraduate work had been history and international relations, and at Oxford I focused on comparative political systems and the EU. The best advice I received—and now give—is: know what you know. Ask yourself: What do I genuinely know more about than the people around me? What interests me deeply enough that I could talk about it comfortably for thirty minutes? Develop that. When you're right out of school, your résumé is basically blank. Having a subject you’re known for helps people remember you.
For me, that was Europe. It wasn’t a common American focus at the time, so it gave me something to offer.
Still, even with languages, degrees, and a Marshall, it wasn’t easy. I spent nearly a year in New York sending cold CVs into the void. I came very close to taking a marketing internship. Then, through a chain of friends-of-friends—literally: me, friend, her friend, her boss, his colleague—I found someone at the Economist Intelligence Unit who happened to need help for a project.
He needed someone to write research pieces on the emerging e-commerce regulations in places like the Philippines, Indonesia, and Brazil. I knew nothing about that, but I knew how to learn. That one opportunity turned into two days a week, then into being in the room in 2000 when Economist.com built its first proper website team. Because it was the dot-com boom, there were resources, enthusiasm, and—crucially—more willingness to take chances on people with less experience.
That’s how I got in—and from there I just never left.​


From Dot-Com Editor to “the Language Guy”
LG: After a few years on the website, I became our breaking-news writer on American politics online. I covered the 2004 and 2008 elections. Then I moved onto the magazine proper on the business side. After that, I was sent to Berlin as our business and finance correspondent. Eventually, I ended up at our London headquarters for six years in editing roles, and now I’m in Spain as a senior digital editor.
Along the way, I developed a second identity—unexpectedly—as “the language guy.” That wasn’t planned. I had always loved languages, and I seemed to have a knack for learning them. Over time I started pitching pieces on linguistics to our Science section. Then I started reading linguistics books and realizing there was an entire field about how language actually works in the mind. I fell in love with it.
Eventually I became one of the few journalists writing regularly about language in a way linguists respected. There’s a lot of bad language journalism out there. Earning trust by writing non-stupid things—over many years—is what allowed me to build that niche. Today, if you asked linguists which journalist knows their field best, I think many of them would say me. That reputation wasn’t part of the original plan. It just accumulated.


What Makes a Pitch Work
BW: That was a terrific intro Mr. Greene, thank you. And it leads me right into my next question: many of our readers likely want to dive into journalism themselves—we’ve hosted many journalists on the blog. So, from your side of the desk, what turns a pitch from “maybe” to “yes”? And what’s a red flag that says “maybe this isn’t ready yet”?
LG: That’s a good question. So a lot of students think journalism is like writing a good college paper: do the homework, master the background, and the professor gives you a good grade. That’s actually the minimum requirement for journalism—understanding the background.
But journalism is fundamentally different from academia. What makes journalism journalism is that you’re trying to find a story that hasn’t been told yet. You’re trying to uncover something people don’t already know. And also, AI cannot do this—it can only remix what's already been written.
At The Economist, we say: you’re pitching a rubric, not a topic
​The standfirst is the bold sentence under the headline that captures the story’s argument.
If someone pitches a topic the editor will ask, “Okay, but what are you saying? What’s your argument? What’s going to happen?” That’s the red flag: pitching a topic instead of a story.
If you can write one sentence that clearly states your argument, you probably have a story. If you can’t, you don’t yet know what you’re saying.


On Learning Abroad
BW: On that note of studying at Oxford, I’m curious—what did that time studying abroad teach you about writing that your time in undergrad in the United States didn’t? Terms to avoid, context to add, assumptions that don’t travel, etc.?
LG: That’s a good question. I’m not sure I ever consciously thought about “assumptions that don’t travel,” but living abroad absolutely forces you to confront what a close friend of mine calls “the dark matter of culture.” When we think about culture, we tend to picture the obvious things—flags, food, clothes. But the “dark matter” is the tiny, unspoken assumptions you don’t realize you’re carrying around until you’re somewhere else and they suddenly don’t apply.
Some of that is fascinating, but you have to pay attention to it, because people often aren’t even aware of those assumptions themselves.
In Britain, for instance, I had to learn very quickly that being entertaining—both in conversation and in writing—is paramount. American journalism, as the British like to say, can be a bit “po-faced.” It’s not a compliment. It means earnest, slightly self-satisfied about its own seriousness and professionalism. British journalists love a good yarn. They’re allergic to taking yourself too seriously—or being seen to take yourself too seriously, to imagine you’re more ethical or hardworking or important than anyone else.
You still need to work hard, of course. But British culture values pretending you’re not working hard.
Even after twenty-five years at The Economist, I’m still sometimes tripped up by being an American in a British institution. Maybe an editor gave me criticism very directly and I misread the tone, or they offered feedback in such a subtle way that my American brain didn’t register it. That sort of thing still happens. It’s like learning a language as an adult—you’ll get good, but you’ll always have an accent.
That’s the analogy that fits culture, too. I have a pretty good handle on British culture now, but I’ll never be mistaken for a native. I’m inescapably American.


Developing a Beat without Becoming a Caricature
BW: You talked earlier about building a brand or niche. For students, that can feel daunting—like you’re locking yourself into one identity forever. Bret Stephens once told me in an interview that instead of majoring in journalism, students should study a substantive field, like Middle Eastern studies, and build expertise there. How do you recommend developing a beat without turning into a caricature of yourself?
LG: Bret’s completely right. I say the same thing. But fundamentally journalism is a trade—you learn it by doing it. You’re not going to be great at the beginning. You need a few years just to get to “competent,” a few more to get to “journeyman.”
It’s not something you learn by studying journalism. You learn law in a classroom, or chemistry. Journalism relies on those people—the subject-matter experts. A good newsroom should have people who studied all sorts of things, not just political science or history like I did.
And the good news is you don’t get stuck in whatever you start with. Tom Friedman began as a Middle East specialist—he studied it, went to Beirut, covered it. But now he writes these big, sweeping essays on geopolitics and economics. He didn’t get trapped as “the Middle East guy.”
Same goes for science reporters, legal reporters—people start with a specialty, but it doesn’t confine you. It helps you get the first job, and then you keep learning.
Over my career I’ve covered culture, business, politics, finance, language—all over the map. Every new beat is like giving yourself a miniature master’s degree. I feel like I’ve earned six of them by now.
So my advice is: have a strength, but cultivate a portfolio. Build depth in one area, but stay curious about many others. No one will pay you to cover one thing for forty years—and you wouldn’t want to anyway.


Three Reads to Make Young Writers Clearer and Braver
BW: I know our time is running out here so I want to ask you if you had to choose three regular reads—books, essays, newsletters—to help young writers become clearer and braver, what would you assign?
LG: I should mention that I wrote the book Writing with Style: The Economist Guide—which is all about stripping clutter from your prose, ditching highfalutin vocabulary, simplifying tortured syntax, and returning to plain, everyday English. There’s even a bit of linguistic history in there—Anglo-Saxon vs. French or Latin roots. So I’ll plug that since I literally wrote the book.
But let me give you three others.
First, George Orwell’s 1947 essay “Politics and the English Language.” It’s foundational. Those six rules of his formed the basis of our style guide. I read it in the middle of my master’s thesis at Oxford—my writing was stiff, academic, self-consciously impressive—and Orwell embarrassed me out of that. Afterward, all I wanted to do was write clear, vivid, active prose. His nonfiction—like “Shooting an Elephant”—is beautiful.
Second, Steven Pinker’s The Sense of Style. Pinker is a linguist, a cognitive scientist, a psychologist—and a wonderfully clear writer. He explains why some sentences are easier to read than others, how language works in the mind. It’s full of linguistics and cognitive science, but it’s fun. I fell in love with language partly through his Language Instinct, but The Sense of Style is a phenomenal guide.
Third—and this is out of left field—Martin Amis. He’s not a journalist at all. But every sentence he writes feels fresh. He refuses clichés, refuses autopilot prose. He once wrote a book called The War Against Cliché, which I haven’t read because he lives it on every page. His sentences are surprising, sharp, sometimes laugh-out-loud funny. No GPT, frankly, could ever be Martin Amis. When I finish reading him, I want to write more energetically and individually.


Audience Engagement, Reddit, and the AMA
BW: Last question—while preparing for this interview, I found an old Reddit AMA you did. You invited anyone to ask you anything. What motivated you to do that, and did it change how you think about audience engagement? Would you do it again?
LG: I’d love to claim it was my idea, but it came from our social team. They’d been putting us out there in different formats—Facebook Live Q&As, Twitter engagement, things like that. They asked if I’d do an AMA, and I said sure.
I wasn’t expecting the hurly-burly of the questions, but honestly, a lot of them were excellent. Reddit had a reputation—at least in my mind—of being slightly disreputable, but many of the questions were thoughtful. I get asked a lot of the same things over the years, but in every Q&A, someone asks something I’ve never been asked before. I love that. It forces me to think fresh rather than repeat myself.
One person even asked whether I’d ever “done the kush,” which was certainly a first—but I answered him!
I’m glad I did it, and yes, I’d do it again. Journalists can easily end up speaking only to the same comfortable audience. But if I’m doing my job right, I want to reach people who haven’t encountered our work before. The Economist looks serious—and it is—but once you pick it up, it’s surprisingly lively. The captions and headlines often have humor in them. We work hard to make it entertaining.
Reaching new audiences is part of the mission. And it’s fun.


BW: Mr. Greene, this was really terrific. Thank you again for speaking with the Blog, I know our readers will really take a lot from this interview.
LG: Thanks, Ben. Best of luck—and I look forward to seeing it.