4 ms·

The premise being old and experienced authors can't make mistakes.

by mfukar 10y ago

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
jordanb 10y ago
I 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 ago
  They'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?
  - ygaf 10y ago
    It depends what you mean by quality. The perceived image of writers doesn't come from what they say, but how they say it along with with the status they start off with (e.g. it's the Economist). Readers don't scrutinize anything that they already agree with, and as far as the linked article is concerned, some don't even qualify as readers.
- mfukar 10y ago
  > I think that if you read the voice of the Economist, it puts on an air of long experience and an expert level understanding I think it's the content of a text, not its label, that displays understanding and experience. Arguing only experts should be writing for X because it puts on an air of expertise is getting causality backwards: a publication gets its reputation from its work.
  - closeparen 10y ago
    The Economist is not doing mathematics or controlled, replicated experiments. Any given reader can't meaningfully check the work of a news organization for its relationship to the truth, except to see whether it aligns with what you already think. If you are not an expert in economics or international relations, who's to say that what you already think is more accurate than what you read in the Economist? Maybe you can check the particular arguments given for minor points, but not for "does this accurately portray the facts on the ground?" or "would a subject matter expert find this claim reasonable?" The latter can be false, for example, when something is plausibly argued and technically correct but missing the point. Reputation and credentials are important because reading something like this is an act of trust. It matters whether the source is competent and trustworthy. However, I don't think it's a problem for the trust to apply at a publication level rather than an individual author level. Editors are a thing. If you already know whether or not the Economist is correct about something, what value are you getting from reading it?
    - arkades 10y ago
      Proxy indicators. The economist writes on topics on which I am an expert. It writes on many topics on which I am not. The topics on which I have expertise I find to generally be (a) reasonably well-written, and (b) incorrect within the recognizable error-margins of "well researched, clearly spoke to a lot of people that knew their shit, didn't see much in the way of terrible mis-comprehensions." That's better than the vast majority of published material on the topics on which I have expertise. I take that as a proxy indicator of the quality of information in the remainder of the magazine. It's not particularly known as being expert in My Topic, so if they handle that well, the rest is reasonably unlikely to be trash. It can, of course, be trash, and this doesn't guarantee any particular piece of writing isn't, but on the whole, I think my conclusion is reasonable.
- eigenvector 10y ago
  > And there's nothing wrong with that. But the magazine is not upfront about it. In fact it intentionally hides it from its readers. I generally agree with your analysis of the Economist's staff, but I wouldn't say they intentionally hide the fact that their writers have little expertise to draw on. It's like an inside joke that anyone who cares to research their editorial practices knows. I still enjoy reading the magazine from time to time, knowing full well that what I am reading about Southeast Asian demographics might have been "researched" by talking to a friend whose girlfriend just returned from a holiday in Cambodia, and just chuckle when I read an impressively argued assertion that I know is superficially true but doesn't mean what the author thinks it does. If you wanted to put out a news magazine as thick as the Economist and actually have everything in it properly researched and written by knowledgeable experts, it would probably either cost $50/issue or, more likely, go bankrupt. So instead we have a magazine that does its utmost to aspire to that ideal, but is actually written by 23-year-olds sleeping under their desks - as you say - who do write some rather good stuff, but also a lot of total baloney. It's half educational and half entertainment - and the fun is figuring out which half is which.
  - golemotron 10y ago
    This isn't uncommon. In law, clerks often write the opinions for judges. In the best case, it's like a mentorship. If you think your favorite opinion or turn of phrase by a Supreme Court Justice came from them, you'd be surprised. Speechwriting for politicians is similar.
    - eigenvector 10y ago
      That's a good point. I know a couple of political speechwriters, and while they're both very smart, they're not experts on anything besides how to write a good turn of phrase. Sometimes they have access to very good research in crafting their narrative, and sometimes they are just making things up as they go along.
  - FabHK 10y ago
    That's a brilliant summary. To that I'd like to add that in addition to the girlfriend returning from the holiday in Cambodia, our young Economist artiste also has access (by virtue of the standing of the newspaper) to the greatest experts in any field. That, and the model of lots of eager youngsters overseen by a thinning pyramid of progressively more experienced people, as in consulting or investment banking, seems to crank out some pretty good results.
ygaf 10y ago
No the premise is simply that young writers wouldn't get respect, and who would disagree?

The premise being old and experienced authors can't make mistakes.

by mfukar 10y ago

The premise being old and experienced authors can't make mistakes.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

jordanb 10y ago

I 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 ago
They'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?
- ygaf 10y ago
  It depends what you mean by quality. The perceived image of writers doesn't come from what they say, but how they say it along with with the status they start off with (e.g. it's the Economist). Readers don't scrutinize anything that they already agree with, and as far as the linked article is concerned, some don't even qualify as readers.
mfukar 10y ago
> I think that if you read the voice of the Economist, it puts on an air of long experience and an expert level understanding I think it's the content of a text, not its label, that displays understanding and experience. Arguing only experts should be writing for X because it puts on an air of expertise is getting causality backwards: a publication gets its reputation from its work.
- closeparen 10y ago
  The Economist is not doing mathematics or controlled, replicated experiments. Any given reader can't meaningfully check the work of a news organization for its relationship to the truth, except to see whether it aligns with what you already think. If you are not an expert in economics or international relations, who's to say that what you already think is more accurate than what you read in the Economist? Maybe you can check the particular arguments given for minor points, but not for "does this accurately portray the facts on the ground?" or "would a subject matter expert find this claim reasonable?" The latter can be false, for example, when something is plausibly argued and technically correct but missing the point. Reputation and credentials are important because reading something like this is an act of trust. It matters whether the source is competent and trustworthy. However, I don't think it's a problem for the trust to apply at a publication level rather than an individual author level. Editors are a thing. If you already know whether or not the Economist is correct about something, what value are you getting from reading it?
  - arkades 10y ago
    Proxy indicators. The economist writes on topics on which I am an expert. It writes on many topics on which I am not. The topics on which I have expertise I find to generally be (a) reasonably well-written, and (b) incorrect within the recognizable error-margins of "well researched, clearly spoke to a lot of people that knew their shit, didn't see much in the way of terrible mis-comprehensions." That's better than the vast majority of published material on the topics on which I have expertise. I take that as a proxy indicator of the quality of information in the remainder of the magazine. It's not particularly known as being expert in My Topic, so if they handle that well, the rest is reasonably unlikely to be trash. It can, of course, be trash, and this doesn't guarantee any particular piece of writing isn't, but on the whole, I think my conclusion is reasonable.
eigenvector 10y ago
> And there's nothing wrong with that. But the magazine is not upfront about it. In fact it intentionally hides it from its readers. I generally agree with your analysis of the Economist's staff, but I wouldn't say they intentionally hide the fact that their writers have little expertise to draw on. It's like an inside joke that anyone who cares to research their editorial practices knows. I still enjoy reading the magazine from time to time, knowing full well that what I am reading about Southeast Asian demographics might have been "researched" by talking to a friend whose girlfriend just returned from a holiday in Cambodia, and just chuckle when I read an impressively argued assertion that I know is superficially true but doesn't mean what the author thinks it does. If you wanted to put out a news magazine as thick as the Economist and actually have everything in it properly researched and written by knowledgeable experts, it would probably either cost $50/issue or, more likely, go bankrupt. So instead we have a magazine that does its utmost to aspire to that ideal, but is actually written by 23-year-olds sleeping under their desks - as you say - who do write some rather good stuff, but also a lot of total baloney. It's half educational and half entertainment - and the fun is figuring out which half is which.
- golemotron 10y ago
  This isn't uncommon. In law, clerks often write the opinions for judges. In the best case, it's like a mentorship. If you think your favorite opinion or turn of phrase by a Supreme Court Justice came from them, you'd be surprised. Speechwriting for politicians is similar.
  - eigenvector 10y ago
    That's a good point. I know a couple of political speechwriters, and while they're both very smart, they're not experts on anything besides how to write a good turn of phrase. Sometimes they have access to very good research in crafting their narrative, and sometimes they are just making things up as they go along.
- FabHK 10y ago
  That's a brilliant summary. To that I'd like to add that in addition to the girlfriend returning from the holiday in Cambodia, our young Economist artiste also has access (by virtue of the standing of the newspaper) to the greatest experts in any field. That, and the model of lots of eager youngsters overseen by a thinning pyramid of progressively more experienced people, as in consulting or investment banking, seems to crank out some pretty good results.

ygaf 10y ago

No the premise is simply that young writers wouldn't get respect, and who would disagree?