Over the years been most impressed and grown very fond of feats of concision involved in summarising whole magazines into a paragraph (having never before really seen the point of similar digests). Recently, however, have noticed encroaching editorialising/value-judgement­s of summarisers (in particular, those of Chadwick Matlin) - which for me rather reduce the pleasure and point of the summaries. Don't need to have it spelled out whether the summariser approves or not of the article being summarised - esp when involves such showoffy phrases as, in this week's Newsweek summary, "the selection itself isn't the most appropriate" (the chief purpose of which seems to be to advertise that the author of the summary has read all of Greenspan's book and would have picked a better extract if s/he'd been given the choice), or the clunking condescension of "Greenspan's ideas are interesting" or of allowing that another Newsweek article tells a "well-crafted story". Both an annoying waste of time and sad loss of what was once a quick and witty read. Matlin not the only offender, simply most ponderous.