
Why are The Economist’s writers anonymous? - vit05
https://medium.economist.com/why-are-the-economists-writers-anonymous-8f573745631d
======
Frqy3
From an economic viewpoint, this also means that the brand value of the
articles remains with the masthead rather than the individual authors. This
commodifies the authors and makes then more fungible.

Being The Economist, I am sure they are aware of this.

~~~
devoply
Not just that, should the author not have the choice as if they wish to remain
anonymous, choose a pseudo name, etc. The choice is simply not there.

> The main reason for anonymity, however, is a belief that what is written is
> more important than who writes it.

Important for whom? The writers? The readers? The advertisers? The company?

The readers could care less. The company probably and maybe the advertisers.
It's more or less saying that we speak as one voice rather than many diverse
voices. So I guess it also implies very strong editorial control. Which means
it's the voice of the owners and its advertisers than voice of a diverse set
of writers.

~~~
bardworx
From my understanding, economist is owned by their employees, and a holding
company[0]. The holding company has no voting shares and the employees have
total editorial freedom.

So it's voice is actually of the writers first and foremost. It's really kinda
cool considering that they're one of the most successful print meadow
companies in an age when most are struggling.[1]

[0][http://www.economistgroup.com/results_and_governance/ownersh...](http://www.economistgroup.com/results_and_governance/ownership.html)

[1][http://www.economistgroup.com/results_and_governance/results...](http://www.economistgroup.com/results_and_governance/results_at_a_glance.html)

~~~
manquer
It is not clear anywhere how much is actually owned by staff. A share owners
include families like Rothschild.. B includes Exor which recently bought from
Pearson . Both groups control 7&6 board seats respectively..

------
hiphipjorge
The one thing I like about The Economist is that it in a world in which
everything is clearly left or right leaning, The Economist has a diversity of
opinions that makes reading it actually interesting. I think the fact that the
name of the writes is anonymous helps a lot in that feel that it's a diversity
of opinions.

~~~
randomsearch
As an economist subscriber, I would say that it does not present a diversity
of opinions at all. It presents a unified world view based on libertarianism.
I read a nice satire once that pointed out that according to the economist
there is no problem that couldn't be solved without lower taxation, more
deregulation, and more free trade.

I love the economist, but If you want balance, you'll need to read alternative
sources that provide a more (dare I say it) compassionate viewpoint.

~~~
closeparen
The Economist is largely in support of regulation to fight climate change,
attributes some countries' economic woes to their governments being too weak
(rather than too strong), supports a social safety net including retraining
for workers affected by trade, thinks austerity in parts of Europe has gone
too far, etc. They're also frequent critics of central banking policy, from
the viewpoint that central banks _should_ take certain actions in certain
circumstances. They've written approvingly of QE, for example.

Their viewpoint reminds me of my economics professor. What is good is what
leads to the most economic growth, which is a question the science of
economics can address. Welfare has a role. Regulation has a role. Monetary
policy has a role. Education has a role. Healthcare has a role (people may
remain in situations of suboptimal productivity to maintain health coverage).
All can be done poorly, but all must be done well to have optimal
productivity. Principles like comparative advantage and supply and demand are
largely reliable, and should guide policy. The market will get most things
right, and for the rest, government should manage the externalities.
Government _can_ have good reasons to impede business, but the benefits should
be in line with the costs.

It is the _Economist_ , after all. Free trade being a good idea is
uncontroversial among academic economists. So yeah, you aren't going to see
them in favor of protectionism. You will see them represent a wider diversity
of opinions on monetary policy, in accordance with its not being so much of a
settled question.

They support a much larger role for the state than the "personal
responsibility"-thumping, climate-change-denying Republicans in Congress, and
are certainly far left of the you're-not-the-boss-of-me Bitcoin-thumping
internet libertarians.

~~~
FabHK
> Free trade being a good idea is uncontroversial among academic economists.

Yes, with the caveat that the theoretical argument in favour of free trade
(say, in a Heckscher-Olin 2 countries, 2 goods, 2 factors model) depends on
compensation to the losers of trade, i.e. redistribution, transfer payments.

That's what turns it (theoretically) into a Pareto improvement: you go from no
trade to free trade, then compensate the losers in both countries, and then
still have cloth and wine left to distribute at will.

Also, less naive and more realistic models make it all much more ambiguous and
complicated.

At any rate, even the simple Econ 101 model says: free trade is unambiguously
good, _if_ you tax the winners and give to the losers... and that second part
is often conveniently forgotten by some, because "free markets" and all.

~~~
eru
Free trade is unambiguously good in terms of maximization of total utility.
Don't the Econ 101 models say something that there might be specific losers,
but overall it's still a net win?

------
martingoodson
Slightly off the topic: having worked with them on an article, I will say they
are an extremely rigorous newspaper. They check every fact and sentence to an
obsessive degree.

I guess the subscription fee pays for this degree of professionalism. I was
impressed enough that I immediately bought a subscription.

~~~
XiaomiFan
I would love to hear more about your experience working with the Economist,
please, do share them!

------
edward
The American author Michael Lewis has criticised the magazine's editorial
anonymity, labelling it a means to hide the youth and inexperience of those
writing articles. See
[https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/1991/10/-quot...](https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/1991/10/-quot-
the-economics-of-the-colonial-cringe-quot-about-the-economist-magazine-
washington-post-1991/7415/)

~~~
mfukar
The premise being old and experienced authors can't make mistakes.

~~~
jordanb
I don't think that's the premise at all. I think that if you read the voice of
the Economist, it puts on an air of long experience and an expert level
understanding of whatever topic is being covered. The magazine plays up its
very long publishing history, for instance (since 1843!).

But behind that facade is a kid not long out of Eton who probably is working
at his very first job.

And there's nothing wrong with that. But the magazine is not upfront about it.
In fact it intentionally hides it from its readers.

It's the same game that consulting firms and I-banks play, where they bring in
a partner to shake some hands and then all the real work is done behind the
scenes by a 25 year old recent graduate with an elite education but no
experience, working 80 hours a week and sleeping under his desk.

~~~
eigenvector
> And there's nothing wrong with that. But the magazine is not upfront about
> it. In fact it intentionally hides it from its readers.

I generally agree with your analysis of the Economist's staff, but I wouldn't
say they intentionally hide the fact that their writers have little expertise
to draw on. It's like an inside joke that anyone who cares to research their
editorial practices knows. I still enjoy reading the magazine from time to
time, knowing full well that what I am reading about Southeast Asian
demographics might have been "researched" by talking to a friend whose
girlfriend just returned from a holiday in Cambodia, and just chuckle when I
read an impressively argued assertion that I know is superficially true but
doesn't mean what the author thinks it does.

If you wanted to put out a news magazine as thick as the Economist and
actually have everything in it properly researched and written by
knowledgeable experts, it would probably either cost $50/issue or, more
likely, go bankrupt. So instead we have a magazine that does its utmost to
aspire to that ideal, but is actually written by 23-year-olds sleeping under
their desks - as you say - who do write some rather good stuff, but also a lot
of total baloney. It's half educational and half entertainment - and the fun
is figuring out which half is which.

~~~
golemotron
This isn't uncommon. In law, clerks often write the opinions for judges. In
the best case, it's like a mentorship. If you think your favorite opinion or
turn of phrase by a Supreme Court Justice came from them, you'd be surprised.
Speechwriting for politicians is similar.

~~~
eigenvector
That's a good point. I know a couple of political speechwriters, and while
they're both very smart, they're not experts on anything besides how to write
a good turn of phrase. Sometimes they have access to very good research in
crafting their narrative, and sometimes they are just making things up as they
go along.

------
jzwinck
Why does the Economist republish its own articles on a different subdomain
with a current dateline?

This one is dated 27 March, but it has a link right at the bottom to the
original, from 5 September 2013: [http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-
explains/2013/09/ec...](http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-
explains/2013/09/economist-explains-itself-1)

~~~
simonh
They occasionally republish historical articles when they think they become
relevant to current events. For example I think around the table me of the
Brexit vote they published an article from the years Britain voted to join the
EU.

In this case the article is more an 'About Us' piece than news or commentary.
I've seen it come up several time so I think it my actually be a permanent
part of the site.

------
compsciphd
From what I understand, it isn't really anonymous. People who care, know who
the writers for each country are. At one point I knew who covered each country
in the middle east, I've since lost interest / forgot, but it was openly
discussed in media forums.

~~~
matt4077
Indeed. This has nothing to do with hiding the authors.

There are, traditionally, two sorts of newspaper articles: the quick, half-
page max Who/What/When/Where, and the longer pieces based on weeks of
reporting, being exclusive etc.

The former are anonymous or have the author's initials only. It's considered
an honour to get one of the latter published. Those are also written
differently, allowing for more of a personal voice.

As it happens, The Economist has a strong focus on the first kind of
article–only the editors get to gave fun when they add the photo captions.

Compare to The New Yorker, or Foreign Affairs, or the Rolling Stone where it
just wouldn't make sense to publish articles without names.

------
Animats
Because that's how they've done it since 1843. So there.

~~~
mirimir
That was the norm then:

> The debate over the [US] Constitution ... was done almost entirely through
> pseudonyms. Most writers, on both sides of the question, chose to conceal
> their names from the public, _as was the custom in the late eighteenth
> century_. A free press, one of the most essential principles for the
> founding generation, was presumed to include a right to anonymity.

[http://www.learnliberty.org/blog/anonymity-and-doxing-in-
the...](http://www.learnliberty.org/blog/anonymity-and-doxing-in-
the-1787-ratification-debates/)

~~~
dredmorbius
Various contemporary views and practices concerning copyright and attribution
are fairly recent constructions.

Prior to the introduction of moveable-type printing to Europe, ~1440, and
_excepting_ the Classics (Greek and Roman works), authorship and authority
were not particularly highly considered. Without the means to cheaply
reproduce and sell works, authorship wasn't a key concern. There were ~30,000
volumes (as in books, total, not merely titles) in _all_ of Europe in 1400. By
1500, 20 million, and approaching 1 billion by 1800. Literacy and costs (in
wage hours) also changed tremendously, rising (from ~5-10% to 90%+) and
falling (from ~$0.5 to $1 million modern equivalent, to perhaps a few dollars
for a work) as well.

"Moral rights" of authorship are a French tradition, though I'm not certain of
the date of origin. Modern copyright law dates to 1709 and the Statute of
Anne.

------
magpi3
They have no bylines and cite no sources. It's the combination of the two that
bothers me. Still I generally find it an entertaining read.

~~~
kelukelugames
It's a downside for me too. I've caught errors and had no one to report them
to.

~~~
saryant
They run a letters to the editor section every week.

------
acd
Economist ownership: "The publication belongs to the Economist Group. It is
50% owned by the English branch of the Rothschild family and by the Agnelli
family through its holding company Exor. The remaining 50% is held by private
investors including the editors and staff" source:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist)

------
sverhagen
I respect the no bylines approach. But using initials on the website is a
misleading feature, if, like they say, these aren't disambiguated between
different authors. If you have four staff members with "J.P.", I'd suggest
using JP1, JP2, ...

------
intrasight
Google "former Economist writer" or "former writer for The Economist". These
people go on to do significant, impactful work in their fields. Writing for
The Economist is for a writer what clerking for a judge is for a lawyer.

------
ComodoHacker
>Historically, many publications printed articles without bylines or under
pseudonyms — a subject worthy of a forthcoming explainer of its own — to give
individual writers the freedom to assume different voices and to enable early
newspapers to give the impression that their editorial teams were larger than
they really were.

Was that the only reason? Wasn't there something about preventing writers from
building their credibility and fame then negotiating higher compensation? Is
there something about it today?

------
NearAP
The greatest disadvantage of this is that sometimes they publish
(repeatedly/often times) stories with provably false 'facts'. Since there is
no byline, there is no 'single' person to hold responsible or call out for the
false reporting.

~~~
appleiigs
The Economist articles often provide opinions. By being anonymous there is
also none of the public/social shaming that goes on, like what happens with
Peter Thiel.

~~~
NearAP
I get that but there has to be a balance. Both Brian Williams and Judith
Miller were in my opinion justifiably held to account for their false
reporting and I believe that helped improve the fact-checking in those news
organizations. Sometimes reading the Economist, the articles come across as
downright condescending

------
jccalhoun
It seems like this practice is more common in the UK than it is in the USA. I
noticed back in 2007 that gaming magazines Edge and GamesTM also didn't give
author credit
([http://popularculturegaming.com/?p=272](http://popularculturegaming.com/?p=272)
). Some time around 2014 Edge changed their policy and started giving bylines.

------
Frogolocalypse
I've always like this aspect of the economist. It also protects individuals
from state bodies that disagree with their views.

~~~
FabHK
Good point. Think Thailand with their Lèse-majesté laws, etc.

------
IslaDeEncanta
The Economist is basic neoclassical nonsense dressed up as nuance. I wouldn't
want my name on it either.

~~~
FabHK
Your opinion reflects a common prejudice, but I don't think it holds up when
you read it occasionally.

~~~
IslaDeEncanta
I'd be interested in recommendations for an article that isn't rooted in
neoclassical thought.

~~~
FabHK
I assume you mean neoclassical economics with its focus on markets,
efficiency, utility and profit maximisation, etc., and its assumption of full
information.

First, I'd say that The Economist's stance these days incorporates Keynesian
thought, and as such might be closer to the neoclassical synthesis, but I'd
argue it goes beyond that.

At any rate, below are some articles just from the last week or two that are
somewhat more progressive, or touch on aspects that neoclassical economics
tended to ignore.

Maybe you'd like to highlight some articles that are off target by being
rooted in neoclassical thought?

* TE applauds Sesame Street for introducing a character with autism ([https://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2017/04/ok](https://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2017/04/ok))

* TE criticises proposals for "extreme vetting" at US immigration ([http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2017/04/not-so-smart](http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2017/04/not-so-smart))

* TE writes about slow improvements in mental health care in India ([http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21719808-suicide-rate-rem...](http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21719808-suicide-rate-remains-high-especially-among-young-women-india-decriminalises-attempted))

* TE laments Trump's attacks on the UN ([http://www.economist.com/news/international/21719467-preside...](http://www.economist.com/news/international/21719467-president-seems-bent-weakening-global-body-could-donald-trumps-attack-un))

* TE writes about global poverty, and notes that "India and countries like it need proper welfare systems", and "A broadly poverty-free world, but with sad, durable exceptions, is not good enough." ([http://www.economist.com/news/international/21719790-going-w...](http://www.economist.com/news/international/21719790-going-will-be-much-harder-now-world-has-made-great-progress))

* "US proposed budget cuts would be bad for environment" ([http://www.economist.com/news/international/21719466-and-sig...](http://www.economist.com/news/international/21719466-and-signal-they-send-even-worse-americas-proposed-budget-cuts-will-be-bad))

Some older articles:

* "Happily, despite Mr Schäuble’s macho rhetoric, the pace of tightening in the euro zone is slowing." "the world needs fiscal policy driven not by faith [in austerity], but by reason." ([http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21565211-debate-about-...](http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21565211-debate-about-budget-cuts-has-become-dangerously-theological-deficit-common-sense))

* "A decent deal would have put Greece on the path to sustainable growth and taken the prospect of Grexit off the table. Instead, Europe has cooked up the same old recipe of austerity and implausible assumptions." ([http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21657806-deal-between-...](http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21657806-deal-between-greece-and-europe-averts-one-disaster-and-hastens-next-pain-without-end))

* TE argues against "the war on drugs" ([http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21650112-one-war-drugs...](http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21650112-one-war-drugs-ends-another-starting-it-will-be-failure-too-wars-dont-work))

* TE on information asymmetry, and in favour of fiduciary duty ([http://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2017/02/who-guards...](http://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2017/02/who-guards-guards))

------
thr0waway1239
Because people who start with economics to provide commentary on social issues
need some anonymity to express themselves freely. Economics is the dismal
science, and you don't want to have a face associated with the sourpuss who
keeps giving everyone these dismal reminders.

~~~
matt4077
Yeah–almost as bad as these sailors who thought they could write a magazine! I
have no idea how they can comment on the news happening mostly on land when
they're out there in "The Atlantic".

