Let me add this: another reason they are anonymous is that they are a tool of the puppeteers. The article itself is self-serving promotion. I print it here because it shows so well how reality gets “dressed up” by the puppeteers and seeks to replace reality. I appreciate that puppeteer influenced media like The Economist and NPR can offer quality at times, but that merely reflects the seductive strategy their herding methods demand of them. Like a good movie or story that sucks the listener in, an entire layer of judgement is bypassed and a suspension of disbelief ensues. That is what the Economist wants the reader of the blurb below to do next time he or she can pick up an Economist. Here’s an excerpt:
“Most newspapers and magazines use bylines to identify the journalists who write their articles. The Economist, however, does not. Its articles lack bylines and its journalists remain anonymous. Why?
Part of the answer is that The Economist is maintaining a historical tradition that other publications have abandoned. Leaders are often unsigned in newspapers, but everywhere else there has been rampant byline inflation (to the extent that some papers run picture bylines on ordinary news stories). Historically, many publications printed articles without bylines or under pseudonyms — a subject worthy of a forthcoming explainer of its own — to give individual writers the freedom to assume different voices and to enable early newspapers to give the impression that their editorial teams were larger than they really were. The first few issues of The Economist were, in fact, written almost entirely by James Wilson, the founding editor, though he wrote in the first-person plural.”