5 ms·
Agreed. The Economist has a bias towards free markets and free press but they are clear on those points. They do a lot of things to stay as unbiased as possible
by alasdair_ 8y ago
Agreed. The Economist has a bias towards free markets and free press but they are clear on those points. They do a lot of things to stay as unbiased as possible, like avoiding attaching a single name to a byline for a story.
Even Karl Marx read The Economist, for what it’s worth.
- avarun 8y ago> They do a lot of things to stay as unbiased as possible, like avoiding attaching a single name to a byline for a story. I don't actually understand this. I personally find that following specific authors whose journalism I find of high quality is a lot more efficient use of my time than following publications. Why does The Economist make this needlessly difficult, and what's the benefit of doing so?
- YjSe2GMQ 8y agoMatter of taste I suppose. It's more like Wikipedia than other modern journalism. Some journalists use pseudonyms, for example Banyan, Butterwood: https://www.italki.com/question/377016 https://www.italki.com/question/377016 Edit: I'd say it has the effect of reducing the impact of ego on writing.
- human20190310 8y agoThe benefit is that it allows the content of the articles to stand on their own merits, instead of involving the reputation of the author.
- alasdair_ 8y ago>The benefit is that it allows the content of the articles to stand on their own merits, instead of involving the reputation of the author. Exactly. Who emphasis should be on "is this true/ a good point?" over "is this someone I think I should agree with already?"