5 ms·

Very timely question, I just purchased an issue of the Economist because I was toying with the idea of re-instating a previously held subscription. I share the

• nerdawson 4y ago
  > …would like to see an alternative that is at the same quality level as the Economist (but with more neutral reporting and individual author names given)… More publications should remove the byline. Individual attribution incentivises journalists to try and stand out which typically means making intentionally inflammatory statements.
  • dpacmittal 4y ago
    Interesting, my first thought was that attribution will add accountability and authors would be more careful of their words.
    • pjc50 4y ago
      The Times columnist who got cited in two mass shooter manifestos as an inspiration is still working.
      • enumjorge 4y ago
        Can you share more info on this? I want to read more about it, but a few google search didn't turn up anything.
        • pjc50 4y ago
          https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/25/norway-melanie-phillips-hits-back https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/25/norway-melanie... ; I believe she was also cited by the guy who shot up a mosque in New Zealand.
    • musk_micropenis 4y ago
      Many journalists today seem more interested in increasing their Twitter followers than being accountable.
  • pydry 4y ago
    The literal exact opposite happens. Journalists without a byline or with a shrunken byline have little incentive to build up a brand as a trustworthy and thorough reporter because they will derive no benefit from their reputation. When their bosses lean on them to produce crap to gin pageviews up just before bonus season they therefore produce crap. Media owners want this. They want journalism to be commodities because journalists with reputations can demand higher pay. They can then claim more of the profit. The losers are the readers and the journalists. In a sense it's the same process that is turning amazon products into shit. Without trustworthy reputation signals, the lowest common denominator rules.
    • itsoktocry 4y ago
      >Journalists without a byline or with a shrunken byline have little incentive to build up a brand as a trustworthy and thorough reporter because they will derive no benefit from their reputation. Or...journalists without a byline have little incentive to "build up a brand" through by appealing to a "side" or sketchy reporting. It cuts both ways.
      • pydry 4y ago
        They are incentivized to do that anyways as their employers chase clicks and views so as to massage the bottom line. Taking away bylines won't make a dent. Taking away bylines simply takes away the incentive to actually be different and stand out for something else.
    • yucky 4y ago
      This doesn't necessarily mesh with what we see in reality though. The Economist doesn't use a byline and they're known as having very high quality content. Even if it's slipped a bit in recent years, it's slipped less than writing in general has. Writers who create their own brand tend to create echo chambers, because readers seek out those they trust (i.e. those who don't challenge the readers preconceived notions). I think the biggest predictor of quality writing is the business model of the publication. Subscription based content is almost always superior. Anything that relies entirely on ad revenue is general hot garbage.
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
• frippertronics 4y ago
  +1 for Le Monde Diplomatique. They also have localised variations with region-specific articles in addition to the translated main articles. The political orientation is to the left, but IMO it doesn't get in the way of the content.
• liotier 4y ago
  > France has Le Monde Diplomatique While Le Diplo's writers are usually top rate and the international outlook extraordinary for a French publication, the caricatural "anticapitalist" and anti-USA stance tint it too much to my taste - and I'm saying that as a French socialist !
  • paganel 4y ago
    Not sure how relevant to HN's audience, but I found out that a very good French magazine is So Foot. It's a sports magazine with really interesting articles and pretty well written, with a slight "political" tone interspersed here and there, if you know where to look (I'd say slightly veering left). [1] https://www.sofoot.com/ https://www.sofoot.com/
• Normille 4y ago
  >I subscribed the Guardian for one year just to avoid that it goes down (I could read it for free at work), and of course it is excellent, but it has a tacit pro-UK bias that brits (esp. leftists) wouldn't even notice. On the other hand they have excellent reporting and do not refrain from the most challenging topics... Funnily enough reading this thread [I don't read The Economist, BTW] I found myself thinking along similar lines as the OP re The Guardian [or the 'Grauniad' as it will forever be known by Private Eye[0] readers of a certain age]. When I originally used to read The 'Graun' back in the 80s 90s, it was a crusading paper which did cover 'challenging topics' --such as Britain's role in Northern Ireland, US bases in Europe, Britain's membership of NATO, nuclear disarmament, class struggle, etc. etc. ie. proper socialist politics. Now, whenever I look at their website all I see are endless articles about racism, hompophobia, transgenderism... whether what X said on Twitter was racist... whether Y's opinion on sport is transgenderist etc. etc. Issues which the current crop of Guardian journalists probably think are terrifically 'crusading' and 'challenging' but which are just pushing at the same open door as every other 'right on' publication and website around and which I find tedious beyond measure. Virtue signalling trivia masquerading as crusading journalism. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recurring_jokes_in_Private_Eye https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recurring_jokes_in_Private_Eye