Pros
Closely working with editorial team whose goals are to ensure work is of high-quality that's been a rarity in my 25+ years of experience writing professionally.
Creative freedom for covering subjects relevant to our readers in thoughtful ways that highlight individual opinions without resorting to snark or sensationalism.
Atmosphere fosters a sense of teamwork even with remote workers, especially if colleagues have questions or need help.
Sensitive support and consideration from superiors when real-life issues arise.
Recognition for successful work both internally and publicly.
Freedom for diversity of opinion amongst writers covering similar projects, so readers get a variety of critical opinions both positive and negative.
Editorial feedback focuses on constructive critique to ensure that articles both meet formatting/content value standards, while keeping the focus primarily on high-quality writing.
Editors are extremely open to original and sometimes unorthodox ideas, shaping them to ensure they meet CBR standards while maintaining the unique point of view of the writers.
Editors also offer a steady stream of ideas for topics of interest to readers, often tailored to individual writer strengths while still leaving room for the stories to reflect specific opinions.
Culture values civility and kindness between colleagues and superiors overall.
Cons
Quota-based writer positions no longer seem to have paid time-off (though accommodations can be made for personal/family emergencies).
The bespoke content management system tends to run slowly which can at times be frustrating for timely submissions. (Though, this could also be my machine rather than the system itself).
Formats/guidelines can sometimes change with little warning and aren't always immediately reflected in training/reference materials.
While not my experience, some of the editors seem to have dealt with significant frustrations from parent company demands and felt their feedback was ignored.