3 ms·

Not the same thing. Economist articles, with the exception of special reports and the farewell article by the editor in chief, are not bylined. The reason bei

Not the same thing. Economist articles, with the exception of special reports and the farewell article by the editor in chief, are not bylined. The reason being that the newspaper wants to speak with one voice. In addition, and being certified and proud opinion journalism, I wouldn't exactly call TE uncontroversial. Not having a byline is very fundamentally different than writing under pseudonym.

motohagiography 8y ago
The distinction would be interesting. The controversial journal is the single voice in this case, and the question of whether the pseudonyms are anonymous, or linkable by the editors to a real identity is the difference. How would you describe the difference as fundamental? Is it of who a reader has recourse to? Separately, TE isn't exactly provocative or brave.
- CaptainZapp 8y ago
  How would you describe the difference as fundamental? I don't think you can really compare a journal, which solicits articles from third parties (even if they're controversial) with a general interest, political, economics, arts, news and lifestyle newspaper, which is published by a number of salaried editors and an editorial board hired by a single publication. Is it of who a reader has recourse to? The editors of The Economist are not unknown entities. Each section has its editors known by the paper, the only thing being that their articles are not bylined. The journalists may not be known to you, but they're absolutely not anonymous and you have every recourse towards the paper and by extension towards the responsible editor. As a matter of fact they're quite good in printing corrections or publishing letters to the editor by an offended party. Separately, TE isn't exactly provocative or brave. Ahem, I introduce evidence #1 [1] In a cover story they made a forceful argument for Gay marriage. That was in 1996. I, for one, wouldn't exactly call that a mainstream opinion in January 1996. As a matter of fact this is pretty much the definition for provocative and brave. [1] https://www.economist.com/node/2515389/print?story_id=2515389 https://www.economist.com/node/2515389/print?story_id=251538...
  - motohagiography 8y ago
    22 years ago, TE was brave, because at that time transgression against middle class values was a big part of the elite they represented. The cultural obligation for the privileged to voice principled dissent is no longer a thing. We buried it with Christopher Hitchens. TE is a group of editors who assign to a large pool of contributors, many of whom are freelancers. Not unlike the controversy journal, which will also publish third party material without direct individual attribution. I would argue the controversy journal allowing pseudonyms for writers is exactly the same as non-bylined articles. Of the values of the last decade that are now held above public criticism, I doubt TE has issued a compelling challenge to any of them, discretion being the better part of valour these days.

motohagiography 8y ago

The distinction would be interesting. The controversial journal is the single voice in this case, and the question of whether the pseudonyms are anonymous, or linkable by the editors to a real identity is the difference. How would you describe the difference as fundamental? Is it of who a reader has recourse to? Separately, TE isn't exactly provocative or brave.

CaptainZapp 8y ago
How would you describe the difference as fundamental? I don't think you can really compare a journal, which solicits articles from third parties (even if they're controversial) with a general interest, political, economics, arts, news and lifestyle newspaper, which is published by a number of salaried editors and an editorial board hired by a single publication. Is it of who a reader has recourse to? The editors of The Economist are not unknown entities. Each section has its editors known by the paper, the only thing being that their articles are not bylined. The journalists may not be known to you, but they're absolutely not anonymous and you have every recourse towards the paper and by extension towards the responsible editor. As a matter of fact they're quite good in printing corrections or publishing letters to the editor by an offended party. Separately, TE isn't exactly provocative or brave. Ahem, I introduce evidence #1 [1] In a cover story they made a forceful argument for Gay marriage. That was in 1996. I, for one, wouldn't exactly call that a mainstream opinion in January 1996. As a matter of fact this is pretty much the definition for provocative and brave. [1] https://www.economist.com/node/2515389/print?story_id=2515389 https://www.economist.com/node/2515389/print?story_id=251538...
- motohagiography 8y ago
  22 years ago, TE was brave, because at that time transgression against middle class values was a big part of the elite they represented. The cultural obligation for the privileged to voice principled dissent is no longer a thing. We buried it with Christopher Hitchens. TE is a group of editors who assign to a large pool of contributors, many of whom are freelancers. Not unlike the controversy journal, which will also publish third party material without direct individual attribution. I would argue the controversy journal allowing pseudonyms for writers is exactly the same as non-bylined articles. Of the values of the last decade that are now held above public criticism, I doubt TE has issued a compelling challenge to any of them, discretion being the better part of valour these days.