3 ms·

> By allowing the author to hide behind anonymity it reveals The Economist's biases and their stake in the debate by asserting that "terf is a slur" and represe

• washadjeffmad 5y ago
  There are plenty of great reasons why author's in reputable publications should (and shouldn't) be identified. I frequently track threads by journalist in order to understand bias. For instance, when I see scathing articles about Bernie Sanders being America's greatest enemy appear across ostensibly venerated and elite publications, I can look up an author's catalog of published work and discover that they are eg- an old money heiress and New England socialite with deeply vested interest in not reforming or regulating causes of wealth inequality who frequently publishes to centrist and liberal-right outlets. Once patterns are identified, other journalists can research and report on what those publications, their editors, or their journalists are attempting to manufacture. Caught early, before they become quoted sources and internally promoted voices of authority, the public has a better chance at gleaning who the real stakeholders are. Anyway, it was recently identified that reassignment surgery costs around $150,000, and at a rate of roughly 1% of the population, that's a multi-billion dollar market without established brand loyalty. The corporations that capture that are expected to be well served.
  • raxxorrax 5y ago
    I agree. In this case, I think anonymity is useful and valid though.