In the context of a newspaper article, a byline is simply the name and often, the title or position of the person(s) who wrote the story.
Sometimes, particularly in the case of editorials – which are opinion pieces written by editors or columnists – explicit bylines are omitted. Editorials in The Express, for instance, are labelled “Express Editorial.”
Since an editorial represents the officially-endorsed (or mandated) “line” of the newspaper on a given topic, the identity of the author is unimportant. The author is the newspaper.
But news stories and analysis pieces are different; they are supposed to be objective and fact-based, rather than polemical and necessarily partisan.
But no one is entirely objective, and no reporter, however scrupulous, is immune to bias.
Moreover, as the bloggers over Eastwick Communications, a technology PR agency, noted:
By the time we read any news article or watch any news segment, even the most “objective” news has been run through a series of bias filters. Each news department selects which stories to cover and which reporters to cover it. Each reporter selects which aspects of a story to focus on and which details of all possible details to include in the story. And editors make selective changes to fit a variety of criteria.
All news is filtered. This is an inescapable fact, and it is why the identity of the author of the story – or in the case of syndicated or externally-sourced content, the source – is so important.
If a story appears in a newspaper (or on a newspaper’s website) without a byline, I have no way of knowing who wrote it, or where it came from.
Here are a few case studies of why bylines matter.
The Trinidad Express ran a piece on Monday 17 March titled “RBTT…what to do?”. The online version of that story, and the only one I have access to, nowhere states where it came from, or who the author was.
It began thus:
In our last article we evaluated the fairness of the valuation of the Per Share Consideration in the proposed Amalgamation of RBTT Financial Holdings Ltd (RBTT) and RBC Holdings (Trinidad and Tobago).
The valuation was conducted using the Discounted Cash Flow methodology. You would recall that based on our calculations the Per Share Consideration of TT$40.00 was not considered unreasonable.
Our article today, the last in our short series, concludes our discussion of the question of valuation, by examining the Earnings Multiple Method, in order to further test the fairness of the valuation of the deal. We will also provide our recommendation to shareholders.
Now, this was not a news story, or even an analysis piece, and it was most certainly not written by a reporter.
This is investment advice, and I don’t know who this “we” is. If I were an RBTT shareholder (and I am not), I would want to know whether the entity advising me to accept the RBC buyout had a vested interested (i.e. they’d make money) in seeing the deal go through.
Without knowing who wrote the piece, I would have no way of checking that.
A counterpoint to the way this report is presented is a similar story in the Jamaica Observer, which the Express syndicated on March 19th (with the a glaring typo in the headline: “Jamacian analysts look forward to bank purchase.” Aargh.)
A financial expert in Jamaica believes that the proposed sale of RBTT Bank to the Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) would increase diversity in the sector while another is saying the potential deal should be looked at in a long-term perspective.
Alexander James, a stockbroker at First Global Financial Services, echoed the view that “the RBTT sale brings a lot more diversity into the market”, the Jamaica Observer reported.
I object to the description of Mr Alexander James as a “financial expert”; a stockbroker is someone who buys and sells shares on behalf of clients on a commission basis. Mr James is not a financial analyst or investment advisor.
Still, at least the Observer named names and companies, and the piece as a whole is well reported.
Here’s another example of a missing byline, also from the Express on March 19, in the Business Magazine section:
Microsoft Corp chairman Bill Gates said he expects the next decade to bring even greater technological leaps than the past 10 years.
That’s fine. That’s uncontroversial. That’s seriously dishonest.
No Express reporter wrote that story. The author was a business writer named Matthew Barakat, of the Associated Press news service.
Now, the Express regularly uses material from services like AP, Reuters and Bloomberg. In newsroom jargon, these are the major “wire” services, which newspapers and other media outlets use for the stories and photographs they don’t themselves have the resources to produce.
These wire services allow newspapers like the Express to syndicate their copy – for a fee, and with the agreement that they will be credited as the source.
Reproducing content from outside sources – without attribution and without permission – is not just sloppy. It’s plagiarism.
The Express isn’t the only one to do this sort of thing, and on a regular basis. The Newsday is notorious for this.
The piece, which Newsday ran on February 24, was lifted wholesale from a British newspaper – the Daily Mail. Newsday did not credit either the author (Victoria Moore), or the source.
This kind of behaviour would get an university undergraduate expelled, but the editors of Trinidad’s daily newspapers seem unconcerned – which is, in itself, deeply distressing.