> …would like to see an alternative that is at the same quality level as the Economist (but with more neutral reporting and individual author names given)…
More publications should remove the byline. Individual attribution incentivises journalists to try and stand out which typically means making intentionally inflammatory statements.
The literal exact opposite happens. Journalists without a byline or with a shrunken byline have little incentive to build up a brand as a trustworthy and thorough reporter because they will derive no benefit from their reputation. When their bosses lean on them to produce crap to gin pageviews up just before bonus season they therefore produce crap.
Media owners want this. They want journalism to be commodities because journalists with reputations can demand higher pay. They can then claim more of the profit.
The losers are the readers and the journalists.
In a sense it's the same process that is turning amazon products into shit. Without trustworthy reputation signals, the lowest common denominator rules.
>Journalists without a byline or with a shrunken byline have little incentive to build up a brand as a trustworthy and thorough reporter because they will derive no benefit from their reputation.
Or...journalists without a byline have little incentive to "build up a brand" through by appealing to a "side" or sketchy reporting. It cuts both ways.
They are incentivized to do that anyways as their employers chase clicks and views so as to massage the bottom line. Taking away bylines won't make a dent.
Taking away bylines simply takes away the incentive to actually be different and stand out for something else.
This doesn't necessarily mesh with what we see in reality though. The Economist doesn't use a byline and they're known as having very high quality content. Even if it's slipped a bit in recent years, it's slipped less than writing in general has. Writers who create their own brand tend to create echo chambers, because readers seek out those they trust (i.e. those who don't challenge the readers preconceived notions).
I think the biggest predictor of quality writing is the business model of the publication. Subscription based content is almost always superior. Anything that relies entirely on ad revenue is general hot garbage.
>This doesn't necessarily mesh with what we see in reality though. The Economist doesn't use a byline and they're known as having very high quality content.
A good way to see that it's not is to find out what investors or beltway policy elites would think and hunt for (entirely factual) things which might contradict their narrative.
I cited an example below of an article about github copilot that was hot garbage - like a starry eyed intern had watched an investor pitch.
On the war front one of the things which I have read in milbloggers is that a key goal of Russia's bombardment of the electricity network is to inhibit Ukrainian rail logistics and prevent the front from being resupplied. Is it working? Well, it was only ever "meant" to crack Ukrainian morale so they wouldnt even think to analyze that.
(good military reporting ought to have a bias towards logistics, but it rarely does...)
The goal of Russia's bombardments is to flood Europe with refugees, provoke civil unrests there and then bring to power Russia's puppets like AfD in Germany and the like.
The end goal is to undermine international support for Ukraine.
Not at the rate of several millions per month which is very likely to happen this winter. FYI, there are estimated 6.9 millions of internally displaced people in Ukraine already.
More publications should remove the byline. Individual attribution incentivises journalists to try and stand out which typically means making intentionally inflammatory statements.