June 17, 2004
From the desk of Jane Galt:Bylines? We don't need no stinking bylines!
You may not have noticed, but the reporters at the Wall Street Journal are going on a byline strike: withholding their bylines, while still performing their contractually obligated writing. As this Slate article outlines, this is a move of dubious effectiveness. There's a sort of wistful wishfulness even to the union leaders arguing in favour of it:
Union leaders claim that readers notice when bylines are missing, especially at major papers like the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal, where reporters and columnists often have big names and a sizable portion of readers follow the press. As for those readers who don't know the difference between David Brooks and David Broder, they may still notice the aesthetic adjustment that removing bylines requires—without them, the paper doesn't look the same. The hope is that the absence of bylines will signal to the reader that there is labor trouble at the paper.
If only. As far as I can tell, the only people who notice bylines (other than op-ed columnists, and often not even those) are other journalists.
Quick test: before you read any further, think of an article you've read in The Economist in the last three months that was really memorable. Then try as hard as you can to remember the name of the guy who wrote it.
A couple of you may have figured out the catch: The Economist doesn't have bylines. And yet I've only ever met one non-journalist who knew this without being told.
Good luck, Dow Jones people. I think you'll need it.
Posted by Jane Galt at June 17, 2004 6:20 PM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound linksNow you know two non-journalists who knew that the Eco doesn't do bylines. Personally, that particular affectation annoys me because it smacks of socialism or cultism: submerging the individual identity in the larger whole, etc.
It seems to me, if you don't have by-lines, you have to pay more. One of the reasons people go into profession where they are given cridit for their work is because they like to see their name and show-off to their friends and brag about their work. When there is no by-line, you can't do that. It's hard to have a clip book with no by-lines.
I agree, it's a stupid way to strike, but still, I think by-lines are very important to writers who couldn't possibly be paid enough money without the by-line.
Meg, tell me if I'm wrong, but to writers for the Economist make more money because there is no by-line? If not, they should.
But think of the possibilities for your resume. Saying you wrote for The Economist is like saying you were once JD Salinger's assistant - who's going to say you didn't?
I am the writer of the New York Times' editorials..er..wait...I don't mean that.....
This really does strike me as about the most bone-headed labor strategy since the Major League Baseball umpires faxed in the their letters of resignation, when they became unhappy with the owners' stance, and the owners responded, "Thanks, have fun selling insurance!", and then went out and hired minor league umpires. Where do I apply to be a labor union negotiater? On second thought, I can do without the aggravation; can you imagine getting second guessed on your work by what passes for wisdom on the pages of the New York Times?
Actually, you can make that 3 who know about the Economist's policy. But this provides me with an opportunity to ask something I've been curious about since I learned about your new gig: which of my weekly Economist read comes from the divine Ms Galt? I guess it might be considered a breach of the policy to let us know, but can you give us hints?
Isn't the byline strike aimed at getting the attention of the journalism industry, though, as much or mor than it is at the general public? It's a way of embarrassing the newspaper in front of its peer media institutions, whether or not the readers pick up on it.
Add a third person who knew the Economists's no-byline policy. I even know the exception (when they review a book by someone affiliated with the magazine; is it to show that the same person didn't do the review?).
Bylines are important, though. If you notice a slant one way or another in news stories, it begins to track on how you see that person. I've noticed (as a NYT subscriber) that Elizabeth Bumiller's articles are snarky and ironic in tone, even though she writes the White House beat. (home of the stiff no-B.S., you would think.) Adam Nagourney is another guy whose bylines cues me into their biases.
(I might add that bias is not negative -- it can't be avoided when you're writing about something like politics.)
Mark me down as still ANOTHER person who was aware of the Economist byline policy. But then, when you go through a social sciences program that sort of thing is common knowledge among all your colleagues, so...
Personally, I think the protesting WSJ reporters would have more success if they submitted their work under juvenile phone-prank pseudonyms (of the type popularized on The Simpsons, e.g. Ivana Tinkle, Oliver Clothesauffe, Seymour Buttz, and so forth).
Any regular reader of The Economist is likely aware the magazine (or, newspaper, as I believe they quirkily call it) features no bylines, although occasionally (and charmingly) the reader will get a glimpse of the voice behind the veil when the writer refers to "your correspondant" in making some point or other.
Another exception to the no byline rule is the semi-frequent use of "By Invitation" columnists (annoyingly, Jeffrey Sachs seems to have one every other issue).
I like the no byline policy myself. It just seems to reinforce the dry lack of sentiment (though not subtle wit and humor) that characterizes The Economist, and makes it seem like much more of a magazine for grownups than, say, Time or Newsweek. I especially appreciate the use of simple language. It would be mighty refreshing if American periodicals could abandon "seniors" or "the elderly" in favor of the perfectly acceptable "old people".
And if I could only get them to publish one of my letters...
Just looking at yesterday's WSJ right now in my (journalist's) office, and two colleagues and I agreed that even we wouldn't have noticed the missing John and Jane Does. I join Jane in wishing the Dow Jones folks much luck.
I know the Economist doesn't have bylines. That may be because I used to work for a magazine, but I certainly notice them.
That forgoing them is of dubious value as a negiation method is a given. But I'm not sure that's the intent; the threat of wider misbehaviour is always implicit in this sort of thing. ("This sort of thing" meaning labor disputes.)
If you're keeping score, add another name to the list of people who know the Economist doesn't use bylines.
PR people are also aware of bylines, which are essential in keeping track of who (and who not to) pitch a story to...
I think that the fact that The Economist doesn't do bylines and the fact that it's one of the best papers around for researched, factual reporting are highly correlated.
Damn, someone used my intended Jeffrey Sachs line already.
I knew the Economist doesn't have bylines--but then forgot. Which shows how important it is to me.
The Economist (my favorite magazine) regularly calls attention to its no-bylines policy by remarking on their presence in the book review section when a book by someone associated with the magazine is reviewed. So I think most readers know it, they just don't care because the editing is so stylistically consistent.
hmmm ... been reading both WSJ and the Economist
for years. Not being a journalist ("I work for
a living..." :-}) I can't say I ever noticed one
way or another in EITHER publication.
sign me (my favorite Simpson's name)
Amanda Hugnkiss
As a long-time reader of the Economist, I am aware of the no-byline policy. I remember discovering it when I wanted to find out who had written a particularly nice article on the Israel/Arabic conflict, and realized that NONE of the articles had bylines.
If I remember correctly, bylines were imposed by the Union military during the Civil War to track who said what. At the time, there was wailing and gnashing of teeth in the press.
Radio bylines "This is Snog Tuesday. Whether something happens remains to be seen. Reporting live from the hotel in Crisis Alley, this is Snog Tuesday for Useless News." came about when the BBC had spoof reports by the Germans, and the familiar newscaster voices helped authenticate the news.
Yep, I think they'll have some trouble getting an effective strike out of it.
Another innovative labor strategy! At least it is a step up from the days when you had to worry about whether a group of fellow employees followed you on to your car to help influence your thinking about what happens on the shop floor.
Just this week, USAToday had an article about physicians refusing to treat lawyers because of the malpractice insurance crisis. Although I have similar sympathies concerning lawyers, it is difficult for me to see how coercion has a useful place in business at any level. I know, I know, going solo isn't for everyone.
If you put your own interests above all others (ala Milton Friedman), the answer must be an unequivocal yes. Hopefully, those of us hiding out in corporate accounting will able to get ahead without similar tactics.
I am a big fan of The Economist's no-byline policy. Hopefully the WSJ will decide to keep them out. With all of the news outlets these days, reporters are encouraged to be as outrageous as possible so they can get more gigs. By not revealing the author's name, the paper forces him or her to focus on good reporting, which is amiss.
THE ECONOMIST DOESN'T USE BYLINES!!!! HOLY CRAP!!!! STOP THE PRESSES!!! COLOR ME BAMBOOZLED!!!
COLOR ME BAMBOOZLED!!!
Sorry, my bamboozled crayon is all used up. Would you settle for flesh tone?
But seriously, folks, my father was a free-lance journalist; bylines were real important for marketing reasons. If I managed a publication and my writers stopped using them, I would figure it made it harder for them to jobhunt, and thus easier for me to mistreat them.
Count another person who knew the Economist's byline policy, and another exception - They regularly identify the author of surveys.
Comments are Closed.