I would add the Monkey Cage, Duck of Minerva, PV @ a glance to this list. If you have a forthcoming article, it's fairly low cost to write a readable (i.e. "journalistic") version that explains the argument and connects it to current events (if possible). And it's a good way to get more eyes on the paper, which otherwise 10 people will see.
My sense is it's viewed as a nice bonus but not incentivized in most places. However, you get academic benefits from doing so, even if you don't care about outreach or "knowledge dissemination", or whatever the Deans call it.
What example could you provide?
OP here; I meant platforms for analyses similar to 'The National Interest', 'The Diplomat', 'Nouvelle Europe', 'Eurasia Review', 'East Asia Forum' etc. depending on one's interest.
They do offer short & nteresting analyses, usually based on original research, but written in a more journalistic style and with less scientific rigour.
I think there is a huge difference in term of mentality of scholars in US and the rest of the world: scholars in the US focuses more on "intellectual rigor" and thus aiming for the top journals because that's the ticket for tenure in great universities, while scholars in the rest of the world aim to influence policy-making, and see those sites as good places to get your opinion out or your idea further hashed out. More importantly, some universities actually count publications in those sites as a plus.
On platforms, it depends on what you are focusing on. You can submit anything to the Conversation as long as it is interesting. They have good editors and decent turn out time. The Diplomat is good if you write on general Asia-Pacific area. If you are focusing on Southeast Asia, New Mandala is the place to go. TNI is actually pretty good for security stuffs. East Asia Forum is good for China/Japan/Korea stuffs.