The Economist is famous for their no-byline approach to to writing articles. How would someone who is a writer for The Economist get a job elsewhere? How would they demonstrate that they know how to write well and/or on a particular topic?
I assuming that while the magazine doesn’t openly credit its writers, it’s not classified information. I would guess if there was a question about which writer wrote a particular article, the magazine could provide their identity.
Note to self: Remember to put writer for The Economist on resume.
The media directory on their website confirms whether someone works for them or not. That could also be confirmed as part of the reference. As far as specific articles, I’m guessing applicants would supply a sample article with their application as per usual - the only difference being that the interviewers would have to ask The Economist for confirmation that the writer really did write that article as part of their reference.
The practice of signing magazine (and newspaper) articles is a relatively recent one. All the major newsmagazines used to be anonymous. In fact, Time boasted that no one writer could be given to any article because field reporters gathered facts which they passed onto a variety of editors at HQ who put together the articles collectively. Leading writers, like Theodore White, used to battle Luce and his minions because White would have his statements contradicted according to whatever editorial policy Luce had in place.
Everybody in the business knew that Teddy White was Time’s reporter in China, and everybody knew that he was being rewritten. Only readers were kept in the dark.
By the 1960s, this policy was getting untenable. The cultural rebellion manifested itself in lots of ways that had nothing to do with music and youth. Readers wanted to know whose opinions they were reading, or at least whose words were involved. White, with his groundbreaking The Making of the President 1960, revealed that campaign reporters had enormous sway over public perceptions. Accountability became increasingly vital, especially after such incidents as Walter Cronkite making a statement against Vietnam on television in 1967. Corporate “objectivity” and “unanimity” on controversial subjects was rejected. Magazines could still have viewpoints, but particular articles should have names attached. Of course, the writers themselves had been fighting for this for years.
IIRC, *Newsweek *started by putting names on certain articles with Time following. Eventually the policy grew to include every article (except short squibs and fillers). Other magazines and newspapers had done this earlier, though with some odd exceptions. The New Yorker used pseudonyms for all its columnists in the early days and Janet Flanner continued to write her Paris column under the name Genet until 1975. The TRB column in The New Republic was possibly the single most important political column in the Nixon era - he was agin him - and it was written by Richard Strout for 40 years, until 1983. (Ironically, it was originally set to be anonymous because the editors assumed that different people would write it every week.) Again, everyone, every single person, in the business knew who was behind these names.
This is pretty much the policy everywhere today. The Economist is the last holdout I know of that is an important magazine in the U.S., even though it is British in origin. I don’t know why they continue anonymity other than tradition, but I guarantee you that the editors at other publications know who they are, especially since their reporters see the people standing next to them at press conferences.
I agree with what you wrote but I think there was also another factor. Journalists started becoming celebrities in their own right. Newspapers and magazines began marketing not just what their content was but who their writers were.
puts hands in pocket
makes no eye contact
exits thread, whistling quietly
scratching head in confusion
wondering what point Jonathan is making
posting a request for more information
maybe he worked for The Economist
bet Jonathan Chance isn’t his real name
always said editors have something wrong with their brains
That’s almost certainly true. I believe the username Jonathan Chance is a reference to fictional character from a Styx concept album. Jonathan Chance’s email address appears to be derived from his real name.
He apparently is an editor. But his magazine is Game Industry News not The Economist and the writers there all have bylines.
Sorry for being coy, there. I apologize.
Game Industry News is merely a side project for me. It’s fun and makes a little money. I try not to discuss it here so much.
I have written for a great many magazines and newspapers on a piecework basis and will likely continue to do so. I enjoy it and it doesn’t take a great deal of time. Even now, when I’m attempting to enter a new industry, I’ll likely let me contacts in the industry know that I’m still in the market for articles and assignments.
I’m confused. Does that help to answer the question of how writers for The Economist get credit for their work?