I’m curious — what are your issues with the anonymity?
John Flores

You could once buy magazines at this traditional kiosk in Copenhagen. Now even The Economist is exploring alternative strategies on the Internet.

The Veil is Infamous

Thank you so much for asking, John. I really appreciate your responding to my comment.

Commoditizing of creative work like serious journalism denigrates the value of the individual writer.

Their is no credit given to the individual journalist.

Neither can I evaluate the credibility of a particular writer.

A good example is the article on language. Did a journalism trainee write it? Or a linguistics expert? An interested amateur or a seasoned journalist? A dilletante or an experienced academic? I have no way of knowing. I do see, however, that a commenter appears to know more about the “eau” sound than the writer of the original article.

Blind belief in the supposed gravitas of a tradition-bound and authoritarian publication no longer makes sense to me.

“It’s true, because, we, The Economist, say it is.”

…is not a convincing argument”

Anonymity supports the carefully-constructed myth of the harbringer of truth and veracity. Writers come and go but the antiquated behemoth remains the same.

Apart from anonymizing writers, my primary objections to The Economist are its stultifying prose and its pompous omniscient tone

I was forced to read many of these articles when I studied for my MBA at IESE. It was cruelty to force me to read this blindingly terse word salad.

So many nights I sat in the library trying to make sense of the words and paragraphs that I had to read and re-read many times before the message sunk in.

Economics is fun! Don’t dull it down with turgidity. Think about the sleepy-eyed students who have to read this stuff!