Being The Economist, I am sure they are aware of this.
The Economist has so good reputation that just being one of the 75 staff journalists creates lasting value for the journalist. Other journals find it important to mention that X.X was previously writing for The Economist.
The Economist is just one of the handful magazines worth of subscribing.
The do seem to have a fairly wide breadth. But given a particular topic, I'm likely to learn much more from an in depth article from most mainstream sources than from an article in the economist.
For a given article, I often think: Well, that's a pretty accurate description of the situation, the main points of contention, and some opinionated conclusion (maybe with a divergent viewpoint thrown in, but not always).
Sure, it's often some young kids from Oxford's PPE (Philosophy, Politics, Economics) programme writing the articles, but they've learned a bit at school and they have access to the best experts. That's what makes it so valuable in my view. I would not call it "banal", but then, I don't necessarily want great originality in my newspaper either.
And, mind you, the articles are typically just one page. That's a pretty good achievement for one page: get the best expert's condensed opinion on a topic.
As an equivalent, think about any info sec topic, and imagine someone sitting down with tpacek for an hour and then writing a one-page article about it. Even if they have not much clue about the topic, the article might be pretty informative, particularly for one page. Yeah, you can go and read hacker news for months or read Schneier's blog and books and the info sec stuff in depths - but most readers of The Economist don't have the time for that.
Providing a concise, informed overview (and view) on a broad array of important topics is what The Economist is good at.
Lastly, while I rant, they do have longer articles ("Briefings") and thematic clusters of articles ("Specials"), which give deeper insight.
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/266932/why-does-s...
It's a curious policy and highly unusual, so I have to wonder if it's a good idea at all. The usual arguments for anonymity online seem to only questionably apply here. There's a lot to be said for people writing under their own names - accountability, for one thing.
We have seen the great unbundling of content. TV stations, cable channels, publishing houses, newspapers were giving way to blogs, you-tube etc..
Recently I start wondering whether the pendulum is swinging back. Netflix, Medium and in particular the recent discussion of distribution networks for ads which provide funding for the long tail.
> 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.
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...
[1]http://www.economistgroup.com/results_and_governance/results...
>The readers could care less.
On the contrary - many people with entirely valid points have been told to go pound sand because of their "distasteful views" in completely unrelated topics. The readers very much do take note if the writer is Stephen Hawking or Alex Jones. They don't care as much if it is Stephen Hawking writing on personal hair product or Alex Jones doing a history article on chewing gum. "Hawking is probably right and Jones is probably wrong." without even reading what they have to say, based on nothing but who they are.
Anonymity detaches preconceived notions from the article. Instead of instantly dismissing any points - no matter how valid - because of who said them the points can stand or fall on their own merit. Bad arguments are bad arguments - no matter who says them. Likewise for good arguments. But people's personal biases will accept bad arguments from people who often say things they agree with and dismiss good arguments from people who say things they often disagree with.
Maybe you don't want to read Peter Theil's view of how the tech sector will change in America even if it was a spot on analysis
The rest of the time when they are not at work, the authors 'recharge' in order to ready for more work and to keep motivation for working. In this way, the worker's entire life during the course of employment 'belongs' to the employer; in fact arguably the time when the worker is most valuable to the employer is when he is maintainig himself, just as the employer must maintain a machine from wear and tear, the worker is able to maintain himself from wear and tear and the employer doesn't have to pay a dime more for it.
I used to read Matt Levine when he wrote for Dealbreaker. I now read him on Bloomberg and rarely visit Dealbreaker.
One's wealth has little relevance to the theory of worker exploitation, alienation and commodity fetishism. You can be a rich worker but still be exploited in the Marxian sense. You can be poor but still be an exploiter. One's wealth has little to do with the relationship to the means of production, unless that wealth comes in the form of private property upon which wage labour can be employed.
The fact is that "pulling up by the boostraps" is not an option for many people, and if it were it does little to stop systemic poverty, destitution and the need to sell labour-time very cheaply.
If a reader believes that the current system is the best system possible, than these politically-charged complaints sound as futile as politically-charged complaints about being unable to exceed the speed of light.
Managerial positions are of course kept (as managers are wage labourers too), the only difference is that there isn't someone at the top to collect surplus labour.
This is otherwise known as anarcho-Communism, or some variant of social anarchism. I am reading into communalism too (Bookchin) and the question of how those in service jobs can own their labour is an interesting one, I'm not aware of the current research on that.