4 ms·
That's an Economist thing. They feel that "what is written is more important than who writes it"[0]. [0]: http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/201
by alcari 11y ago
That's an Economist thing. They feel that "what is written is more important than who writes it"[0].
[0]: http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/09/economist-explains-itself-1 http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/09/ec...
- JoeAltmaier 11y agoHow can they pretend to write with authority on a subject? They don't even publish their editorial board. Its little better than a random guy on the internet quoting made-up facts without SOME idea where they came from. And don't say "The Economist" because they don't say who that is!
- leephillips 11y ago"don't say "The Economist" because they don't say who that is!" It is The Economist. That's the whole point. There is a (good) reputation attached to it. If they fail to live up to their own standards, then that reputation will crumble and people will stop reading and quoting it. It's a brand. We used to have brands for products, like RCA, Westinghouse, Philips, etc. But these have become just nametags that are bought and sold, and no longer mean much, or anything. But there are a few brands left that still mean something.
- romaniv 11y agoMaybe the editorial staff assumes the responsibility for all the correctness issues? That would actually makes sense, since they have the final say in what gets published and should do some additional verification. Just a theory. I don't read The Economist very often and never offline.
- JoeAltmaier 11y agoExcept I don't know who that is - they don't publish them either.