My tweets

• Fri, 12:46: What are the ethics of publishing an anonymous book review in the @TheEconomist - is this something they do a lot?
• Fri, 12:47: RT @matthewharrison: @Lollardfish I believe (from online discussion) that it's their regular behavior.
• Fri, 12:51: Anne Frank was no angel. #MixedMemes #economistbookreviews
• Fri, 12:52: RT @YAppelbaum: "We regret having published this and apologize for having done so." Economist withdraws review of @Ed_Baptist's book: http:…
• Fri, 12:53: Good for the @TheEconomist admitting mistakes. Also, good job twitter.
• Fri, 12:58: RT @kjhealy: This is one of the main reasons it is so hard to write a "popular" book that allows you to keep your status as a "serious" sch…
• Fri, 12:58: RT @kjhealy: The best diagnosis and analysis of the general issue is Murray Davis's brilliant paper "That's Interesting!" http://t.co/iksKx…
• Fri, 13:01: RT @katrinagulliver: @Lollardfish I don't think there are bylines on any @TheEconomist articles; not just book reviews.
• Fri, 13:03: RT @ByzCapp: @Lollardfish Publisher's Weekly has anonymous reviews. Sort of an "institutional we" writing for the brand.
• Fri, 13:22: RT @davidfolkenflik: Incendiary Economist review of book on slavery withdrawn forthrightly, transparently cc: @jonathanchait @ron_fournier …

( Read more... )