I think it's also an interesting example of whats possible when authors don't need to have a byline.
"We like free enterprise and tend to favour deregulation and privatisation. But we also like gay marriage, want to legalise drugs and disapprove of monarchy. So is the newspaper right-wing or left-wing? Neither, is the answer. . . it opposes all undue curtailment of an individual’s economic or personal freedom. But like its founders, it is not dogmatic. Where there is a liberal case for government to do something, The Economist will air it. Early in its life, its writers were keen supporters of the income tax, for example. Since then it has backed causes like universal health care and gun control. But its starting point is that government should only remove power and wealth from individuals when it has an excellent reason to do so."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/09/ec...
Actually in general writers at The Economist are not _allowed_ to have a byline.
Judging the agenda of a (very good, imho) publication (as if it could have one) based on an op-ed is ridiculous. Where is the critical thought? The Economist has been around for 150 years, and if you felt like it you could find individual articles that would indicate any such "bias" you desired.
Oh well.
Honestly, this sounds like something liberals ought to be lining up behind, not all standing around kicking dirt because they don't like who said it. In fact pretty much everyone who isn't in the government ought to asking for this.
Or is everyone else here really arguing that unknown accusations being settled behind closed doors for often poorly- or un-disclosed amounts of money between the government and big corporations is just peachy keen? Honestly the tone of the most of the replies being made here sort of boggle my mind.