in the old days (pre 1980's) it was very much individuals having views. now there a lot more standardization, a lot more people read, review and approve before publication. its why the articles seem so much more homogeneous, very bland. by the time they are written, scrubbed for controversy and approved by legal and the gb, they are tepid at best.
the truth of their views seems to be much more on display when they speak in public like the j w o r g talks, zone visits etc etc