4 ms·
Interesting magazine to be writing about Anonymous. I sometimes feel that the magazine itself is a LOIC for the global banking system. It's possibly one of many
by JSig 16y ago
Interesting magazine to be writing about Anonymous. I sometimes feel that the magazine itself is a LOIC for the global banking system. It's possibly one of many publications (nodes) that publishes (DDOS) anonymous writings that seem to usually endorse the position that the world needs more debt.
- anigbrowl 16y agoHow is publishing in any way analogous to a denial of service? If I purchase a copy of the Economist, it does not impair anyone else's economic activity or ability to do business with me. Your suggestion that they promote indebtedness doesn't seem very consistent with the content either.
- bertil 16y agoI agree with you that the parallels were… creative —— but I've been one the wrong end of publication once, and it can be close to a DDoS. You can't respond, whatever the journalist misunderstood is the Word of God, and if he wake up on the wrong foot, it feels very much like a mob —— the paper actually triggered a crowd of 15 to beat me.
- Symmetry 16y agoReally? They seemed to print hand-wringing articles about how developed countries are too far in dept semi-regularly until the recent financial crisis. Example: http://www.economist.com/node/275183 http://www.economist.com/node/275183
- jonshea 16y agoVery interesting. I’m glad that you pointed out that the Economist is “anonymous”. (If you haven’t noticed, almost all Economist articles are published without a byline). It’s a quirk I’ve never been convinced that they adequately justify. One of my favorite gags is to claim that I write for the Economist? Don’t believe me? I challenge you to prove that I don’t.
- papaf 16y agoI went to a talk by a part time science writer for the Economist. She is a Scientist and this shows because the science pieces in the Economist are as good as the fluffy stuff in the front of Nature. I think the anonymity allows people, who are experts in their field, to be candid but protect their reputation.
- bertil 16y agoIt has little to do with anonymity (although it's close to ‘Anonymous‘ approach): they do it to force journalists of the “factual” part of the magazine to accept that they are part of a redaction; see: http://www.economist.com/about/about_economist.cfm http://www.economist.com/about/about_economist.cfm That “lack of by-line” allows them to have a tone and yet, not be the Opinion pages; it seems to work. They have a public list of their journalists (or at least, their work): http://www.economist.com/mediadirectory/books.cfm http://www.economist.com/mediadirectory/books.cfm and staff can publicly say they work there. A friend of mine works there (or interns, not sure); she post on Facebook and twitter the papers that she wrote, or the video that she shot, but she also includes other papers that she really liked. I'm assuming the official policy is stricter, but what she does is rather implicit, that only a handful of people notice (and presumably mostly other journalists that help with her ‘beat‘). So far, she has defended, sincerely, every paper that I criticized (I go after The Economist a lot) — most of them quite far from her beat (I'm closer to the Economist's line when it comes to the topics that she covers).