4 ms·

Interesting example from print media: The Economist doesn't have author names. Critique and appreciation have both been expressed over this, but I don't think t

• pydry 6y ago
  It's often said that nobody would read the Economist if they saw the kind of pimply faced recent graduates who actually wrote it. My cynical side says that this is a way of preventing journalists who work there from accumulating a fanbase which would give them leverage over the magazine (since they could then viably threaten to take to different publications). It fits in with their neoliberalish philosophy.
• nmfisher 6y ago
  I actually prefer pseudonyms (or the Economist's anonymity/column name policy) in print media. It could be simple selection bias - perhaps better quality outlets tend to operate under pseudonyms, rather than pseudonyms themselves improving the quality of the publication. But I speculate that operating under one's real name might increase the propensity to craft and cling to an "identity". That horrible concept of a "personal brand", if you will. You want people to remember you - which means constant soundbites, hammering the same dumbed-down points from the same angles. There's no respite - it's under your real name, after all - so you slowly subsume yourself into this talking head that you've created. One day, you wake up, and you've completely lost any capacity for impartiality or objectivity. Pseudonyms also allow multiple people to write the same column. I've long wondered if the Economist engages in this practice (not that I would be critical if they did, it's out of sheer curiosity).