10 ms·
Why are The Economist’s writers anonymous?
- Animats 10y agoBecause that's how they've done it since 1843. So there.
- theparanoid 10y agoThe explanation started off with occam's razor: it's tradition. Then morphed into occam's butterknife: some complicated rationalization.
- mirimir 10y agoThat was the norm then: > The debate over the [US] Constitution ... was done almost entirely through pseudonyms. Most writers, on both sides of the question, chose to conceal their names from the public, as was the custom in the late eighteenth century. A free press, one of the most essential principles for the founding generation, was presumed to include a right to anonymity. http://www.learnliberty.org/blog/anonymity-and-doxing-in-the-1787-ratification-debates/ http://www.learnliberty.org/blog/anonymity-and-doxing-in-the...
- mrkgnao 10y ago"I'll write under a pseudonym and you'll see what I can do to him!" I mean, the Federalist Papers "fifty-one!" sequence would probably have made a better refernce, but they're not too explicit about the pseudonyms there.
- dredmorbius 10y agoVarious contemporary views and practices concerning copyright and attribution are fairly recent constructions. Prior to the introduction of moveable-type printing to Europe, ~1440, and excepting the Classics (Greek and Roman works), authorship and authority were not particularly highly considered. Without the means to cheaply reproduce and sell works, authorship wasn't a key concern. There were ~30,000 volumes (as in books, total, not merely titles) in all of Europe in 1400. By 1500, 20 million, and approaching 1 billion by 1800. Literacy and costs (in wage hours) also changed tremendously, rising (from ~5-10% to 90%+) and falling (from ~$0.5 to $1 million modern equivalent, to perhaps a few dollars for a work) as well. "Moral rights" of authorship are a French tradition, though I'm not certain of the date of origin. Modern copyright law dates to 1709 and the Statute of Anne.
- dredmorbius 10y agoBecause they represent The Man, oppressing Labour.
- tcbawo 10y agoA friend who works in banking says that around the office, they call it the e-communist, because of its left-leaning stances.
- mintplant 10y agoI will echo one of my favorite comments on this site: "Left of whom, Darth Vader?"
- saryant 10y agoDoes GP's friend also think that the National Review is too friendly towards the Clintons?
- jeff_petersen 10y agoI don't know too much about Star Wars, but is there anything that actually indicates Darth Vader would be politically right-leaning? The empire could very well be authoritarian-left.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- dredmorbius 10y agoNot really: http://www.economist.com/node/1873493 http://www.economist.com/node/1873493 Leaders tends to lean more conservative than the full reports in the rest of the paper. And it's not entirely hidebound. But the paper certainly knows its biases.
- magpi3 10y agoThey have no bylines and cite no sources. It's the combination of the two that bothers me. Still I generally find it an entertaining read.
- closeparen 10y agoThey cite institutional sources on facts all the time. The rest is analysis, for which they are the source.
- kelukelugames 10y agoIt's a downside for me too. I've caught errors and had no one to report them to.
- saryant 10y agoThey run a letters to the editor section every week.
- dredmorbius 10y agoThere's generally one piece per issue on some recent element of economic scholarship. This generally does mention the article in question. Contrast with, say, The New York Times, which to the best of my knowledge entirely fails in this regard, even when specifically discussing scientific or medical research "a study", and author(s) names are about as much as you can hope for), and I'll nod slightly to The Economist. I ran across a Los Angeles Times piece a few months back which rather pointedly did reference several sources, with hyperlinks. A practice I applaud highly.
- IslaDeEncanta 10y agoThe Economist is basic neoclassical nonsense dressed up as nuance. I wouldn't want my name on it either.
- seanmcdirmid 10y agoWhat would you want your name on then?
- mfukar 10y agoHacker News, obviously.
- FabHK 10y agoYour opinion reflects a common prejudice, but I don't think it holds up when you read it occasionally.
- dredmorbius 10y agohttp://www.economist.com/node/1873493 http://www.economist.com/node/1873493
- IslaDeEncanta 10y agoI'd be interested in recommendations for an article that isn't rooted in neoclassical thought.
- FabHK 10y agoI assume you mean neoclassical economics with its focus on markets, efficiency, utility and profit maximisation, etc., and its assumption of full information. First, I'd say that The Economist's stance these days incorporates Keynesian thought, and as such might be closer to the neoclassical synthesis, but I'd argue it goes beyond that. At any rate, below are some articles just from the last week or two that are somewhat more progressive, or touch on aspects that neoclassical economics tended to ignore. Maybe you'd like to highlight some articles that are off target by being rooted in neoclassical thought? * TE applauds Sesame Street for introducing a character with autism (https://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2017/04/ok https://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2017/04/ok) * TE criticises proposals for "extreme vetting" at US immigration (http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2017/04/not-so-smart http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2017/04/not-so-smart) * TE writes about slow improvements in mental health care in India (http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21719808-suicide-rate-remains-high-especially-among-young-women-india-decriminalises-attempted http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21719808-suicide-rate-rem...) * TE laments Trump's attacks on the UN (http://www.economist.com/news/international/21719467-president-seems-bent-weakening-global-body-could-donald-trumps-attack-un http://www.economist.com/news/international/21719467-preside...) * TE writes about global poverty, and notes that "India and countries like it need proper welfare systems", and "A broadly poverty-free world, but with sad, durable exceptions, is not good enough." (http://www.economist.com/news/international/21719790-going-will-be-much-harder-now-world-has-made-great-progress http://www.economist.com/news/international/21719790-going-w...) * "US proposed budget cuts would be bad for environment" (http://www.economist.com/news/international/21719466-and-signal-they-send-even-worse-americas-proposed-budget-cuts-will-be-bad http://www.economist.com/news/international/21719466-and-sig...) Some older articles: * "Happily, despite Mr Schäuble’s macho rhetoric, the pace of tightening in the euro zone is slowing." "the world needs fiscal policy driven not by faith [in austerity], but by reason." (http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21565211-debate-about-budget-cuts-has-become-dangerously-theological-deficit-common-sense http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21565211-debate-about-...) * "A decent deal would have put Greece on the path to sustainable growth and taken the prospect of Grexit off the table. Instead, Europe has cooked up the same old recipe of austerity and implausible assumptions." (http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21657806-deal-between-greece-and-europe-averts-one-disaster-and-hastens-next-pain-without-end http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21657806-deal-between-...) * TE argues against "the war on drugs" (http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21650112-one-war-drugs-ends-another-starting-it-will-be-failure-too-wars-dont-work http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21650112-one-war-drugs...) * TE on information asymmetry, and in favour of fiduciary duty (http://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2017/02/who-guards-guards http://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2017/02/who-guards...)
- NearAP 10y agoThe greatest disadvantage of this is that sometimes they publish (repeatedly/often times) stories with provably false 'facts'. Since there is no byline, there is no 'single' person to hold responsible or call out for the false reporting.
- trendia 10y agoThe editor. (Unfortunately, that makes the editor's job that much harder.)
- seanmcdirmid 10y agoThe editor's job should be hard though.
- billjings 10y agoThat's not a bug, it's a feature. The institution takes the blame and bears the good and bad of its reputation. Firing the "bad egg" is never enough on its own, anyway — the existence of a bad egg is proof that the institution itself needs fixing.
- appleiigs 10y agoThe Economist articles often provide opinions. By being anonymous there is also none of the public/social shaming that goes on, like what happens with Peter Thiel.
- NearAP 10y agoI get that but there has to be a balance. Both Brian Williams and Judith Miller were in my opinion justifiably held to account for their false reporting and I believe that helped improve the fact-checking in those news organizations. Sometimes reading the Economist, the articles come across as downright condescending
- elgenie 10y agoRight, there's no individual to scapegoat, so the entire "The Economist" institution puts a portion of their credibility on the line with each article they publish.
- sverhagen 10y agoI respect the no bylines approach. But using initials on the website is a misleading feature, if, like they say, these aren't disambiguated between different authors. If you have four staff members with "J.P.", I'd suggest using JP1, JP2, ...
- thr0waway1239 10y agoBecause people who start with economics to provide commentary on social issues need some anonymity to express themselves freely. Economics is the dismal science, and you don't want to have a face associated with the sourpuss who keeps giving everyone these dismal reminders.
- matt4077 10y agoYeah–almost as bad as these sailors who thought they could write a magazine! I have no idea how they can comment on the news happening mostly on land when they're out there in "The Atlantic".
- jzwinck 10y agoWhy does the Economist republish its own articles on a different subdomain with a current dateline? This one is dated 27 March, but it has a link right at the bottom to the original, from 5 September 2013: http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/09/economist-explains-itself-1 http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/09/ec...
- simonh 10y agoThey occasionally republish historical articles when they think they become relevant to current events. For example I think around the table me of the Brexit vote they published an article from the years Britain voted to join the EU. In this case the article is more an 'About Us' piece than news or commentary. I've seen it come up several time so I think it my actually be a permanent part of the site.
- Frogolocalypse 10y agoI've always like this aspect of the economist. It also protects individuals from state bodies that disagree with their views.
- FabHK 10y agoGood point. Think Thailand with their Lèse-majesté laws, etc.
- compsciphd 10y agoFrom what I understand, it isn't really anonymous. People who care, know who the writers for each country are. At one point I knew who covered each country in the middle east, I've since lost interest / forgot, but it was openly discussed in media forums.
- saryant 10y agoPlus they have an online directory of their editorial staff and correspondents. http://mediadirectory.economist.com/ http://mediadirectory.economist.com/
- matt4077 10y agoIndeed. This has nothing to do with hiding the authors. There are, traditionally, two sorts of newspaper articles: the quick, half-page max Who/What/When/Where, and the longer pieces based on weeks of reporting, being exclusive etc. The former are anonymous or have the author's initials only. It's considered an honour to get one of the latter published. Those are also written differently, allowing for more of a personal voice. As it happens, The Economist has a strong focus on the first kind of article–only the editors get to gave fun when they add the photo captions. Compare to The New Yorker, or Foreign Affairs, or the Rolling Stone where it just wouldn't make sense to publish articles without names.
- edward 10y agoThe American author Michael Lewis has criticised the magazine's editorial anonymity, labelling it a means to hide the youth and inexperience of those writing articles. See https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/1991/10/-quot-the-economics-of-the-colonial-cringe-quot-about-the-economist-magazine-washington-post-1991/7415/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/1991/10/-quot...
- mfukar 10y agoThe premise being old and experienced authors can't make mistakes.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- jordanb 10y agoI don't think that's the premise at all. I think that if you read the voice of the Economist, it puts on an air of long experience and an expert level understanding of whatever topic is being covered. The magazine plays up its very long publishing history, for instance (since 1843!). But behind that facade is a kid not long out of Eton who probably is working at his very first job. And there's nothing wrong with that. But the magazine is not upfront about it. In fact it intentionally hides it from its readers. It's the same game that consulting firms and I-banks play, where they bring in a partner to shake some hands and then all the real work is done behind the scenes by a 25 year old recent graduate with an elite education but no experience, working 80 hours a week and sleeping under his desk.
- mseebach 10y agoThey're not hiding anything and it's not a game. They have a policy that it's the quality of what's written, not the credentials of the writer, that matters. If the quality of the writing is such that the image projected is one of super experienced, highly credentialed writers, while in fact it's written by someone who not, that's surely a good thing?
- hiphipjorge 10y agoThe one thing I like about The Economist is that it in a world in which everything is clearly left or right leaning, The Economist has a diversity of opinions that makes reading it actually interesting. I think the fact that the name of the writes is anonymous helps a lot in that feel that it's a diversity of opinions.
- jawarner 10y agoThe Economist is diverse across red and blue lines. That said it does publish from a unified worldview. From my perspective it's libertarian.
- randomsearch 10y agoAs an economist subscriber, I would say that it does not present a diversity of opinions at all. It presents a unified world view based on libertarianism. I read a nice satire once that pointed out that according to the economist there is no problem that couldn't be solved without lower taxation, more deregulation, and more free trade. I love the economist, but If you want balance, you'll need to read alternative sources that provide a more (dare I say it) compassionate viewpoint.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- ACow_Adonis 10y agoAlso as an economist subscriber :P, I agree that its not really a diversity of opinions. Its never going to write a pro-brexit article, for example, nor ask for less trade/protectionism. But I would hesitate to call it a libertarian perspective. Its a very "traditional+behavioural" (I do not have a better word) economics point of view. Its "pro free-trade", and generally socially liberal, and sure, it argues against various taxes, but I believe it called out house price bubbles pre-2008, and I think it would generally be in support of environmental regulation (it is not global warming/environmentally skeptic), some kinds of financial regulation, and probably pro-socialised health care. Coming from a european persepctive (as in, the economist is a distinctly european/british magazine), its probably a fair bit more skeptical of american capitalism and libertarianism than might otherwise be assumed.
- acd 10y agoEconomist ownership: "The publication belongs to the Economist Group. It is 50% owned by the English branch of the Rothschild family and by the Agnelli family through its holding company Exor. The remaining 50% is held by private investors including the editors and staff" source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist
- coffeymug 10y agoWhy is this being hidden? A magazine about economics that has been in circulation for over 200 years and is owned by the Rothschild family. How could this be somehow unrelevant.
- okasaki 10y agoHow is it related?
- Veen 10y agoIt's not being hidden. The ownership of the Economist Group is is disclosed on its website[0]. And it's on Wikipedia. It's not "owned" or controlled by the Rothschild family: they own some shares in it, which don't give them control. > [The Economist Group's] articles of association also state that no individual or company can own or control more than 50% of its total share capital, and that no single shareholder may exercise more than 20% of voting rights exercised at a general meeting of the company. [0]: http://www.economistgroup.com/results_and_governance/ownership.html http://www.economistgroup.com/results_and_governance/ownersh...
- ComodoHacker 10y ago>Historically, many publications printed articles without bylines or under pseudonyms — a subject worthy of a forthcoming explainer of its own — to give individual writers the freedom to assume different voices and to enable early newspapers to give the impression that their editorial teams were larger than they really were. Was that the only reason? Wasn't there something about preventing writers from building their credibility and fame then negotiating higher compensation? Is there something about it today?
- martingoodson 10y agoSlightly off the topic: having worked with them on an article, I will say they are an extremely rigorous newspaper. They check every fact and sentence to an obsessive degree. I guess the subscription fee pays for this degree of professionalism. I was impressed enough that I immediately bought a subscription.
- XiaomiFan 10y agoI would love to hear more about your experience working with the Economist, please, do share them!
- Frqy3 10y agoFrom an economic viewpoint, this also means that the brand value of the articles remains with the masthead rather than the individual authors. This commodifies the authors and makes then more fungible. Being The Economist, I am sure they are aware of this.
- ue_ 10y agoIn a weak sense, the authors are commodified no matter what, just as any other worker is. As a proletarian, he must sell his labour-time (by the hour, week, month, year...) on the market to the bourgeoisie, his labour-time being the only thing he can sell, in order to make enough to survive. The rest of the time when they are not at work, the authors 'recharge' in order to ready for more work and to keep motivation for working. In this way, the worker's entire life during the course of employment 'belongs' to the employer; in fact arguably the time when the worker is most valuable to the employer is when he is maintainig himself, just as the employer must maintain a machine from wear and tear, the worker is able to maintain himself from wear and tear and the employer doesn't have to pay a dime more for it.
- vostok 10y agoI don't think that's true for authors who are not anonymous. I used to read Matt Levine when he wrote for Dealbreaker. I now read him on Bloomberg and rarely visit Dealbreaker.
- HappyTypist 10y agoOf course, the worker can choose to put a portion of their income into assets that generate income, and build wealth.
- ue_ 10y agoIt's good if some workers are fortunate enough to be able to do this while working for wages, though many do not have such an option either by the need to support a family, paying off debt or the wage is not great enough to be able to invest any of it. One's wealth has little relevance to the theory of worker exploitation, alienation and commodity fetishism. You can be a rich worker but still be exploited in the Marxian sense. You can be poor but still be an exploiter. One's wealth has little to do with the relationship to the means of production, unless that wealth comes in the form of private property upon which wage labour can be employed. The fact is that "pulling up by the boostraps" is not an option for many people, and if it were it does little to stop systemic poverty, destitution and the need to sell labour-time very cheaply.
- intrasight 10y agoGoogle "former Economist writer" or "former writer for The Economist". These people go on to do significant, impactful work in their fields. Writing for The Economist is for a writer what clerking for a judge is for a lawyer.
- jccalhoun 10y agoIt seems like this practice is more common in the UK than it is in the USA. I noticed back in 2007 that gaming magazines Edge and GamesTM also didn't give author credit (http://popularculturegaming.com/?p=272 http://popularculturegaming.com/?p=272 ). Some time around 2014 Edge changed their policy and started giving bylines.