Really? I have the opposite problem, where my professors demand author names with our citations, which makes The Economist particularly difficult to cite.

None of the reporters at The Economist sign their names to any articles. The editorials are all written by a single author using a pseudonym related to their area (Lexington, Banyan, Charlemagne, Bagehot, Schumpeter and Buttonwood). You can find their …

The purpose, obviously is to tell you who wrote the story. But it’s interesting to look at the evolution of it. Before, maybe, the 1960s, bylines were fairly rare in most US newspapers. They were awarded by editors as special recognition when someone …

I choose to think that this is … an honor. Ahem. Is it? Put differently, what does it mean to be “running in Hacker News”?

You are currently running in Hacker News, 2011 Ides of March edition (not really, just that it happens to be today).

Thanks for sharing what you know and your views about The Economist’s lack of bylines. I came to this post after doing some Googling after reading a Chinese article where the author made a claim that I suspected was mistaken. So I am glad to find your blog entry that proves that the author was wrong.

Regards,
Kempton
Calgary, Canada

P.S. In case you care, the last half of my blog entry is in English and should be understandable,
http://ca8hk.wordpress.com/2009/09/30/to-creative-facts/

I’m amazed you didn’t know about this! I actually don’t listen to any of the podcasts but do listen to the entire print edition. It comes out every Thursday night or Friday.

The current issue is 8.3 hours long. (They have four readers, I assume they record it in parallel after the print edition has gone online) I only listen to the Economist while doing something else: riding my motorcycle, brushing my teeth, walking to class, etc. Still, spaces when my hands are busy but mind free are far more than the length of an Economist issue- I often finish on Monday or Tuesday.

In the audio edition, the author of special reports seems prominent, although I couldn’t find it in this week’s on Russia. The audio edition, more than anything else, is what has kept me reading… err listening to the Economist every week.

1. Doing a research paper, when it’s great to be able to cite “The Economist” rather than an author neither myself nor my teacher has heard of.
2. Doing unofficial inquiry, when bylines are a dimension of data for hyper linking information. For example, I only found this blog through the byline on your mobility special report. This blog has been useful and interesting for me, so bylines have been a benefit.

When listening to the Economist I have thought to myself, “I’ll bet Mr. Kluth wrote this.” But without confirmation it does not really get put into the same mental bin as things I know you’ve written. This is a shame, because it would be great to mentally categorize things that I do really enjoy in the Economist apart from the publication as a whole.

Every week I listen to the “newspaper” cover to cover. Mentally, the Economist brand has been bolstered by articles likely written by a subset of writers at the Economist that I particularly enjoy. But it has been sapped by articles that I enjoy to a lesser degree, i.e. about 60% of the Britain section. This is not to say that it is necessarily styles I like or dislike, but differing topic areas hold differing degrees of interest for me.

I like to think I use the Economist as gateway to further inquiry. For example, I’m reading “Grown Up Digital” based on a recent book review, and often ask friends about articles in their area of expertise. In this sense, bylines would give me greater fidelity in classifying the massive amount of information published each week, so I vote yes.

At IBM there are lots of old-timers who still refer to powerpoint slides as foils. I am unaware of any other IT-savvy corporation which still uses the term “foil”.

Regarding the moniker of “newspaper” rather than “magazine”: I wish there were a great story to tell, but this one appears to be down to simple inertia. Back in 1843, a newspaper was any paper that reported the news, whether daily, weekly or monthly. Since then, the word “magazine,” originally meaning a storehouse of ammo or inventory, came to mean a vault of information, and thence a specialized or regular publication different from newspapers.
But you would not expect us to become slaves of fashion merely because a word changed connotation a century ago or so, would you? Surely, that might invite radicalism and disaster. Lo, we might start calling “Leaders” opinion, “Briefings” features, or “Notes” articles.

http://www.ft.com/lex/about

I have to admit that one of the attractions of the World In [Year] publications has been finding out who has been behind some of The Economist’s weekly pieces. In fact that’s the first thing I attempt to discover when I get my copy each December.

Suggestion for the subject of another blog post of yours to demystify our favorite newspaper: why does The Economist insist on being called a newspaper rather than a magazine?

I had expected most of you to vote FOR bylines. Instead, you are clearly conflicted, suggesting that you see the subtleties of the issue.
The leader is currently No (The Economist should NOT have bylines).
A third of you voted Yes, but a lot of you voted “only in some cases.”

That said, a simple byline would not give away whether the author is staff or non-staff, so I can’t imagine that this would be the main reason for not having bylines.

I have seen this happen in my case. Some portion, usually the lede and the kicker, of a good number of the pieces I write get Economized. So there is truth to the collaborative writing process for me, and perhaps for other freelancers as well.

Katrina: rest assured that an editor’s fiddling hurts not just you or City journalists, but all writers. It gives me indigestion. I still recall single-word changes made ten years ago with undiluted horror. (And good luck. Maybe you’ll be part of the family one day…)

Mr Crotchety: With your disarming charm, you give voter fraud a good name. I won’t ask how many computers you found in the library.

Yes, Bagehot, Charlemagne, and Lexington are columns written by one person each. As are Obituaries (with exceptions), Buttonwood and Economics Focus (with exceptions). And you can “feel” that in their personality. The only column that is written by many people is Face Value, and that is something that we regularly discuss.

Christopher: Very subtle and perceptive point! You put your finger on the importance of attracting, keeping and nurturing talent (something that we write about a lot, and think about a lot internally). Burke’s message is worth pondering.

But the time may come when this doesn’t pay off.

Given the speed of change in modern society, the Economist may correspondingly have to change in the matter of article anonymity.

To paraphrase Edmund Burke, a magazine (or “newspaper”) without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation.

Part of the reason I read the Economist is to become a better writer. So, among other things, I try to look for any indication of personality or characteristic style. The book reviews have the most personality, but I guess they are opinions so I shouldn’t be surprised. I prefer the bylines to be absent (whoops, I voted again).

Technology and Science articles always pulls me in before anything else, but I think I know who usually writes those articles. So, who needs bylines?

Doing the same thing for 160+ years is a good way to seem conservative while endorsing something (someone) liberal, anonymously. Similarly, it feels safer when reading negative criticism or scary stories about things like waterboarding. We all feel safer having learned information knowing we can honestly never reveal our source – even under duress. These are more reasons why I do not favor bylines. Ack. Somebody stop me.

Are Bagehot, Lexington and Charlemagne always the same person? Are they guests?

That’s all for now. I’ve got to get to the library and try voting from every computer I can find.

My initial desire for bylines can be explained by your point 3 above: to not include a byline in a Special Report would be too cruel, because a Special Report is the author’s baby. Scarily enough, for us “freelance” (read City student) journalists, any story – and I mean any – is a very well loved baby. When editors don’t give me a byline I think they are being too cruel. Their “just a NIB” comments cut deep, let me tell you.

I have now realised that normal (read not-City student) journalists don’t trade in bylines as if they’re oil. And a willingness to give them up deserves my respect. I look forward to the day when I can treat them as much less rare and scarily valuable commodities. Roll on the day I’m hired by The Economist…