The Economist’s tradition of hiding the identity of its writers has proved to be a stumbling block in reaching the person who wrote April 10 that the Tylenol recall in 1982 "is the gold standard of crisis management because the company simply recalled all Tylenol without hesitation or demur."
The column was written under the pseudonym "Schumpeter" which is standard practice at the magazine. There are no listings of any editors or writers anywhere in the magazine.
April 10, 2010 Economist |
Johnson & Johnson at first confined the recall to two small lots that were distributed in the Chicago area. The first murders took place on Wednesday and Thursday,, Sept. 29 and 30, 1982 and the recall was not announced until the following Tuesday or about six days later.
J&J CEO James Burke scheduled a meeting on the tragedy for Monday, Oct. 4 and the recall was announced the next day.
Crisis expert James Lukaszewski, commenting on Burke’s lack of immediate action at a PRSA/Westchester-Fairfield chapter March 7, 2001, said the "astounding part" of a Harvard University videotape on Burke and Tylenol is that Burke learned of the tragedy on Wednesday, Sept. 30, and called a staff meeting for Monday.
"Think about that," said Lukaszewski."What started on Monday was an enormous debate within the organization as to what to do about [the murders]."
Counselor Helio Fred Garcia, who spoke on the same program, called the story of the immediate Tylenol recall "a myth."
Lukaszewski said that when he asks students when Tylenol was pulled from the market most of them say between 24 and 72 hours after the murders.
Economist Editors Duck
Phone calls and e-mails by this website to Economist editors about its false description of the Tylenol recall have not been answered thus far.
Matthew Bishop is U.S. business editor and New York bureau chief and John Micklethwait is editor in chief based in London.
The magazine is often criticized for its policy of using pseudonyms such as "Bagehot," "Charlemagne" and "Lexington" for those who write articles and opinion pieces.
Critics says the magazine is hiding the fact that contributors rather than staff may be writing some articles.
The magazine has replied that it is more than 160 years old and at that time "anonymity was the norm. Then the industry went on a slightly disturbing path towards writer celebrity and we simply chose not to participate." The magazine also said that it’s not just "a marketing gimmick" but a "brand."
Another explanation given is that several writers may participate in an article or editorial and that naming one writer would not be accurate.
"Special Reports" by the magazine may have a writer who is identified.
While the Economist sticks to its anonymous writers, some newspapers, magazines and other media readily identify writers with a byline at the beginning or an e-mail address at the end of the article.
Among the newspapers doing this is the New York Post, which supplies the e-mail address of the writer at the end of each article or editorial.
Critics say that media are seeking transparency and should practice it themselves. |