I heard the same podcast and the argument is actually the same as this line from the article: "“One type of writing hasn’t replaced the other,” McCulloch write

I heard the same podcast and the argument is actually the same as this line from the article: "“One type of writing hasn’t replaced the other,” McCulloch writes, taking care to emphasize that the situation between formal language and internet language isn’t zero-sum." It's just that The Economist made this division much more explicit, and used it as the basis for their argument while the NYT relegates it to a single line at the end of the article...