As a former newspaper reporter myself, I like to think I have an eye for what goes on a newspaper story, particularly a really good one like the one this morning in the Times on Europe’s contrasting approach to a stagnant economy.

The reporter obviously knows a lot and has done a lot of work. Less obviously, he has a strong point of view, probably gained from all that work. He weaves it into the story without being too obvious about it. The subtext of this story is the reporter practically screaming,”Jees, these guys system is working a lot better and with more subtlety than ours.”

This point of view comes out a bit more obviously in paragraphs like this:

“Without knowing it, Mr. Koppe’s 25 employees are playing their small part in keeping the German economy afloat. But nearly 70,000 employees of the automaker Daimler have been placed on short-hour status. On the bright side, it means they are able to play with their children, tend to their gardens or — with further government incentives — receive the kind of advanced training that will make them even more skilled when orders pick up again.”

This “On the bright side” line is where the reporter takes a step more obviously into the story.

I’m okay with that. Particularly given that I used to do it myself a lot. It’s a tricky game, because do it too obviously, and an editor will slap you down. “Objective journalists” aren’t supposed to say what they think. Sort of.

Particularly good and unusual is that the reporter, Nicholas Kulish, is getting into competitiveness. The story closes with this laid off worker, or actually worker on half time, using his free time to learn new skills. This implies what I know: Germany remains competitive because its workers are encouraged to go back and learn new skills. The system is set up that way. Ours are encouraged to go home and watch TV.