3 ms·
While "The Guardian" published this, it did so as a signed commentary piece, by Nouriel Roubini (which further appears to have come via a syndication service, '
by gojomo 8y ago
While "The Guardian" published this, it did so as a signed commentary piece, by Nouriel Roubini (which further appears to have come via a syndication service, 'Project Syndicate').
Such pieces are not the publication's opinion any more than a "letter to the editor", and papers will publish many contradicting opinions this way.
So it's not really accurate to attribute quotes from this article to "The Guardian". Only a very few, typically unsigned (or signed 'the editors') commentaries in a publication are officially the outlet's house opinion – and these often contradict or reference-but-highly-qualify any differing signed opinions (like this Roubini piece) they've separately published.
- rmrfrmrf 8y agoThat's really beside the point and the people at The Guardian know that anything under their masthead is ultimately going to affect brand perception.
- gojomo 8y agoMaybe they're hoping online readers will eventually become as smart as paper readers, for whom this distinction between "signed guest commentary" and "house opinion" was clear for hundreds of years?
- laretluval 8y agoBlaming the users is usually not the most effective way forward.
- gojomo 8y agoBlaming those making false attributions is the only way to correct those misattributions!
- TearsInTheRain 8y agoIt's under their brand, they published it. Imho we should expect better from them
- gojomo 8y agoStill doesn't make it accurate to attribute it to 'The Guardian'. And still, even a publication with a strong "house perspective", like The Guardian, doesn't limit itself to publishing only commentaries it fully endorses. I know this is confusing to online readers, and in some cases poor design by the outlets feeds it further, but outlets like this have long tradition of publishing things they don't fully, or even partially, agree with. Roubini's in the news – just testified for the US Congress – so his perspective is worth understanding, separate from any publications' own beliefs. (And The Guardian is likely to have some sympathy for his opinion, but even there – wrong to attribute Roubini's signed words to the publication.)