4 ms·
The greatest disadvantage of this is that sometimes they publish (repeatedly/often times) stories with provably false 'facts'. Since there is no byline, there i
by NearAP 10y ago
The 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.
- FabHK 10y agoSorry, are you saying they "repeatedly/often times" publish "false facts"? Can you elaborate? I'm sure they've made the occasional mistake (though my understanding is their fact checking is exceptional), but "repeatedly/often times"? Really?