This business journalism racket can be pretty easy when seen in a certain light -- either day or moon. All you have to do is give something with which you're not emotionally involved a flat gaze and say what is wrong or right about it as it currently stands. Journalism, after all, is about what is. The essential problem is that business, especially stock prices, is about what will be.

And God help many (uh, any) of us who actually attempt to offer proactive solutions to what might make a once-great but now-ailing company great again. Sure, we can tell you what went wrong. But what has to go right?

That's why I am going to give my coveted Business Press Maven "Nod of Approval" to a lame little effort from The Economist.

I know, I know: This truncated story and a twig or two will barely kindle a fire. But the point, I say with my tendency to condescend in full flower, is the effort.

Even in failing to fully explain how to resuscitate Gap ( GPS), this article is more instructive to the investor than so many others. At least it gives you a road map of sorts: If you see a surge of new advertising hitting the airwaves, a la 2002, does that necessarily mean the Gap's problems are solved? Remember that creating an iconic ad campaign to sell widgets, or khakis, is a little like writing the Great American novel to sell books: easier said than done. Or, if you see the company hire a new captain, even one with an impressive CV, will that be enough to right the ship?

In the end, by reading this story that tries admirably, and fails miserably, to explain what this once-bellwether retailer should do, you also realize how hard and dependent on chance any recovery may be. And that, in a sort of roundabout way, is a huge service to investors.

The article starts with the obvious backstory: Gap's history of retail mastery, followed by its massacre over the past two and a half years. During that time, same-store sales mostly have been flat, or in the immortal words of Aerosmith, "going down." Executives have been fleeing en masse because of the appearance, in the immortal words of former New York Knick Michael Ray Richardson, that "the ship be sinkin.'" And current management, which is a kind word for what is in place, has, in the immortal words of just about every other troubled management team in the world, cried "help" to a team of investment bankers it hired to explore possible escape hatches. Did I say that? I meant "options."

Taking all this in but looking forward, The Economist offers up the advice of analysts: Get a new, better CEO with a background in fashion. But everyone knows that there have been plenty of much-ballyhooed executive hires who go on to lose value for all parties concerned (except for themselves, via fat agreed-upon-in-advance severance packages). And it remains to be seen whether the Gap, in its faded condition, can even lure a heavy-hitter with the goods to turn it around.

What¿s more, the article's suggested tasks for a new executive aren¿t exactly easy, or guaranteed to turn the retailer around. They include closing more stores, reducing new-product lead time and bringing in new talent. (Remember: It¿s not just new blood, but the right blood.)

One possibility might be rehiring Mickey Drexler, who built Gap up, got fired about five years ago, and has now done well with J. Crew ( JCG) (which I own in my children's woefully underfunded college savings accounts.) That might be a good move. Drexler is to my mind as close to a genius as exists in retailing, if not business. Of course, if he leaves J. Crew, my kids are worse off than they were.

The Economist also rounds up all the boilerplate sales and buyout options the investment bankers get paid so much to trot out time after time. So-and-so can sell; so-and-so can buy. In other words, by trying to look forward and offer true-blue fixes for what is wrong with a company, The Economist has shown investors the ironclad truth: It is going to be really difficult for Gap. Good work, sort of. As you go forward, look for more articles that attempt such a feat without a net. You'll get more out of it than you will from, say, a profile that draws a CEO as the lost love child of Einstein and General Patton.

Horrid Hagiography

Speaking of visionaries, let¿s talk about a man who wasn't: Sandy Weill, the dearly departed head of Citigroup ( C). When he retired last April, The Business Press Maven wanted to poke sticks in his own eyes while reading the coverage. Nothing misleads investors more than a light, puffy, lifestyle-infused profile of a CEO, complete with odes to his brilliance. Stocks have made more fleeting pops after such stories than almost anything else, so beware.

And with Weill retiring, we had the chance to really advance our understanding, to weigh the legacy of one of the most influential and interesting dealmakers of his time. Inarguably, Weill assembled an enormous batch of financial companies. He bought many of them wisely, at low prices. And he could hold costs in check on Wall Street, which few can. But, long term, Weill could only be a success if his ultimate creation -- the financial supermarket, the financial conglomerate that could offer everything to everyone -- thrived.

Instead of trying to get a handle on this and whether Citigroup could survive without him, we had to read that Weill had lost weight, was tan, into poetry, was apt to weep and loved his wife. Where is Weill¿s legacy a year later? Where is his vaunted financial supermarket? The answer for the investor is, as always, in language. And that doesn't mean Weill's poetry.

Citigroup announced this week that it was going to drop "group" from its name.

A group without synergy is, in the end, not a group.

At the time of publication, Fuchs held shares of J. Crew in his children's college savings accounts.

A journalist with a background on Wall Street, Marek Fuchs has written the County Lines column for The New York Times for the past five years. He also contributes regular breaking news and feature stories to many of the paper's other sections, including Metro, National and Sports. Fuchs was the editor-in-chief of Fertilemind.net, a financial Web site twice named "Best of the Web" by Forbes Magazine. He was also a stockbroker with Shearson Lehman Brothers in Manhattan and a money manager. He is currently writing a chapter for a book coming out in early 2007 on a really embarrassing subject. He lives in a loud house with three children. Fuchs appreciates your feedback; click here to send him an email.

More from Opinion

Trump Blinks on China Trade War That's Looking Harder to Win

Trump Blinks on China Trade War That's Looking Harder to Win

Monday Madness: GE, China, and Micron

Monday Madness: GE, China, and Micron

Attention 60 Minutes: Google Isn't the Only Big-Tech Monopoly

Attention 60 Minutes: Google Isn't the Only Big-Tech Monopoly

How Technology Will Unleash the Legal Marijuana Industry's Growth Potential

How Technology Will Unleash the Legal Marijuana Industry's Growth Potential

Apple Buys Tesla? Amazon Buys Sears? 3 Dream Mergers That Just Make Sense

Apple Buys Tesla? Amazon Buys Sears? 3 Dream Mergers That Just Make Sense