3 ms·

https://archive.is/ozASI https://archive.is/ozASI Does anyone else find the Economist's lack of bylines and complete author anonymity to be off-putting? It's s

https://archive.is/ozASI https://archive.is/ozASI Does anyone else find the Economist's lack of bylines and complete author anonymity to be off-putting? It's scary how much influence they have and how no one seems to mind that they don't feel comfortable putting their names on the stuff the advocate for and report on. Great article!

TheCowboy 5y ago
While I can understand the point of view, focus on the content not who the writer is, I'm not really a subscriber. I like to have some sense of a person's background on a subject the less I follow it. It also sets a ceiling on the amount of trust you can develop with readers IMHO.
bpodgursky 5y ago
> no one seems to mind that they don't feel comfortable putting their names on the stuff the advocate for and report on. This is a really weird interpretation of "it's editorial policy". The journalists aren't declaring anything about their confidence in what they're reporting. It's not their choice. So why are they working at the Economist? Because (1) it's hard to get a journalism job, and (2) the Economist is a prestigious place to work. I wouldn't read too much into it.
Darmody 5y ago
In a paper published in Trends in Ecology & Evolution, a team led by Sara Ryding, a PhD candidate at Deakin University, in Australia I think that's the author we should care about, not who wrote the article in The Economist.
dryd 5y ago
I personally like it. They comment their rationale for this choice here, under "Author anonymity": https://www.economist.com/frequently-asked-questions https://www.economist.com/frequently-asked-questions
thaumasiotes 5y ago
> no one seems to mind that they don't feel comfortable putting their names on the stuff the[y] advocate for and report on The first-line accountability is deliberately on the editors rather than the reporters.
kortilla 5y ago
First, journalists shouldn’t be “advocating” for anything. Second, a byline only serves the purposes of allowing ad hominem attacks rather than focusing on the content.
sjtindell 5y ago
The way they do it is significantly better than almost any other magazine out there in my opinion.
ramphastidae 5y ago
Quite the opposite. I appreciate that the focus is on the content of the article and not the author.
voldacar 5y ago
It lessens the incentive for journos to chase clout and try to inject their "personal brand" into their writing. Personally, I love it.

TheCowboy 5y ago

While I can understand the point of view, focus on the content not who the writer is, I'm not really a subscriber. I like to have some sense of a person's background on a subject the less I follow it. It also sets a ceiling on the amount of trust you can develop with readers IMHO.

bpodgursky 5y ago

> no one seems to mind that they don't feel comfortable putting their names on the stuff the advocate for and report on. This is a really weird interpretation of "it's editorial policy". The journalists aren't declaring anything about their confidence in what they're reporting. It's not their choice. So why are they working at the Economist? Because (1) it's hard to get a journalism job, and (2) the Economist is a prestigious place to work. I wouldn't read too much into it.

Darmody 5y ago

In a paper published in Trends in Ecology & Evolution, a team led by Sara Ryding, a PhD candidate at Deakin University, in Australia I think that's the author we should care about, not who wrote the article in The Economist.

dryd 5y ago

I personally like it. They comment their rationale for this choice here, under "Author anonymity": https://www.economist.com/frequently-asked-questions https://www.economist.com/frequently-asked-questions

thaumasiotes 5y ago

> no one seems to mind that they don't feel comfortable putting their names on the stuff the[y] advocate for and report on The first-line accountability is deliberately on the editors rather than the reporters.

kortilla 5y ago

First, journalists shouldn’t be “advocating” for anything. Second, a byline only serves the purposes of allowing ad hominem attacks rather than focusing on the content.

sjtindell 5y ago

The way they do it is significantly better than almost any other magazine out there in my opinion.

ramphastidae 5y ago

Quite the opposite. I appreciate that the focus is on the content of the article and not the author.

voldacar 5y ago

It lessens the incentive for journos to chase clout and try to inject their "personal brand" into their writing. Personally, I love it.