3 ms·
Not just that, should the author not have the choice as if they wish to remain anonymous, choose a pseudo name, etc. The choice is simply not there. > The main
by devoply 10y ago
Not just that, should the author not have the choice as if they wish to remain anonymous, choose a pseudo name, etc. The choice is simply not there.
> The main reason for anonymity, however, is a belief that what is written is more important than who writes it.
Important for whom? The writers? The readers? The advertisers? The company?
The readers could care less. The company probably and maybe the advertisers. It's more or less saying that we speak as one voice rather than many diverse voices. So I guess it also implies very strong editorial control. Which means it's the voice of the owners and its advertisers than voice of a diverse set of writers.
- bardworx 10y agoFrom my understanding, economist is owned by their employees, and a holding company[0]. The holding company has no voting shares and the employees have total editorial freedom. So it's voice is actually of the writers first and foremost. It's really kinda cool considering that they're one of the most successful print meadow companies in an age when most are struggling.[1] [0]http://www.economistgroup.com/results_and_governance/ownership.html http://www.economistgroup.com/results_and_governance/ownersh... [1]http://www.economistgroup.com/results_and_governance/results_at_a_glance.html http://www.economistgroup.com/results_and_governance/results...
- manquer 10y agoIt is not clear anywhere how much is actually owned by staff. A share owners include families like Rothschild.. B includes Exor which recently bought from Pearson . Both groups control 7&6 board seats respectively..
- elastic_church 10y agoIt avoids ad hominem attacks over decent independent research. Maybe you don't want to read Peter Theil's view of how the tech sector will change in America even if it was a spot on analysis
- clamprecht 10y agoThe choice is in taking the job as a writer for the Economist.
- Nadya 10y ago>Important for whom? The writers? The readers? The advertisers? The company? >The readers could care less. On the contrary - many people with entirely valid points have been told to go pound sand because of their "distasteful views" in completely unrelated topics. The readers very much do take note if the writer is Stephen Hawking or Alex Jones. They don't care as much if it is Stephen Hawking writing on personal hair product or Alex Jones doing a history article on chewing gum. "Hawking is probably right and Jones is probably wrong." without even reading what they have to say, based on nothing but who they are. Anonymity detaches preconceived notions from the article. Instead of instantly dismissing any points - no matter how valid - because of who said them the points can stand or fall on their own merit. Bad arguments are bad arguments - no matter who says them. Likewise for good arguments. But people's personal biases will accept bad arguments from people who often say things they agree with and dismiss good arguments from people who say things they often disagree with.