Most of the "editorials" I've read are well written but simplistic. Example, this one here. Things most here knew or figured out a long time ago. What I often post is researched, straight-from-the-horse's-mouth, convincing evidence of what Obama and the commie left are up to. Conveniently gathered facts which can be easily passed along to friends, relatives or enemies. Much of it is stuff you won't see many other places. You do write very well, however. Your use of the language is impressive. But, again, I'll take substance over style every time.
I'll make one last attempt. I'm not sure why.... however, then I am done.
Do you know the basic rule of good presentation? It is this: Tell them what you are going to tell them, then tell them, then tell them what you told them... and BE SUCCINCT WHEN YOU ARE DOING SO. Most CEOs (and other public speakers) follow this formula with great success.
Let us consider a radio broadcast. Perhaps it has crucial information in it. But if the signal is hard to discern, scratchy or unintelligable or has way too much information for too little a time, most people will tune out. An attractive broadcast, however, expounding on one single theme, often gets and holds peoples' attention.
The goal of a communicator is not to talk, or write. THE GOAL OF A COMMUNICATOR IS TO BE HEARD, OR BE READ.
You won't be read if your message is unattractive. You will be read if your message is attractive. Part of being attractive is being succinct and limiting your message bandwith to something manageable.
What you would term 'simplistic' is, to my perception, a manageable-sized and attractive message.
Linky no workee, or did you mean the original post in this thread?
Cheers!