6 ms·

I wonder if Bloomberg, which also sells ad spots, is an unbiased source of information here.

neya 7y ago
It's because Bloomberg News pays reporters more if their stories move markets [0] [0] https://www.businessinsider.in/Bloomberg-News-Pays-Reporters-More-If-Their-Stories-Move-Markets/articleshow/27230622.cms https://www.businessinsider.in/Bloomberg-News-Pays-Reporters...
- duality 7y ago
  Interesting. So they're reporting on a competitor and are known to try to move markets with their stories. Is there oversight? Since I have no legal training I ask naively, do protections for journalism cover a situation where reporters aim to influence and persuade (like editorials) rather than provide "just the facts?"
  - empath75 7y ago
    Given that the newspapers at the founding of the republic were nakedly partisan and biased and the founders were well aware of it, yes, the first amendment protects journalists who produce biased bullshit. You can only be prosecuted for slander and libel, and there is a high bar to prove it.
    - ekianjo 7y ago
      How about SuperMicro? Unproven accusations go unpunished?
- crazygringo 7y ago
  People keep repeating that here on HN as if it's a bad thing. New information moves markets, and the larger impact it has, the more it will move markets, because markets are built on information. And obviously the function of the free press is to uncover and disseminate new information, the more meaningful the better. So it's not underhanded -- it's noble and completely aligned with good. (Of course if reporters make up information or lie it's bad, but that's a separate issue, for which lazy or unethical reporters are generally fired.)
  - neya 7y ago
    "Free press" doesn't mean you can skew facts to paint a deceptive picture as in this case, you can see the graphs. This is the same Bloomberg that reported about the Super Micro story and we all know what happened. There should also be some accountability and you can't just shrug it off because you're the "free press".
dredmorbius 7y ago
Bloomberg are not the sole source here: "Google owner Alphabet misses forecasts: Google's parent company, Alphabet, saw its shares drop in after-hours trading after the internet giant missed revenue forecasts" https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48099862 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48099862 "Alphabet revenue dented by cooling Google ad business" https://www.ft.com/content/01c12de0-6aa2-11e9-a9a5-351eeaef6d84 https://www.ft.com/content/01c12de0-6aa2-11e9-a9a5-351eeaef6... "Google parent's shares dive as YouTube changes, competition hurt revenue" https://reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUSKCN1S521N https://reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUSKCN1S521N
reaperducer 7y ago
Except it's not a Bloomberg story. It's numbers from Google's earnings reports, and every major financial publication is running similar reports. Don't blame the messenger if you don't like the message. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_the_messenger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_the_messenger

neya 7y ago

It's because Bloomberg News pays reporters more if their stories move markets [0] [0] https://www.businessinsider.in/Bloomberg-News-Pays-Reporters-More-If-Their-Stories-Move-Markets/articleshow/27230622.cms https://www.businessinsider.in/Bloomberg-News-Pays-Reporters...

duality 7y ago
Interesting. So they're reporting on a competitor and are known to try to move markets with their stories. Is there oversight? Since I have no legal training I ask naively, do protections for journalism cover a situation where reporters aim to influence and persuade (like editorials) rather than provide "just the facts?"
- empath75 7y ago
  Given that the newspapers at the founding of the republic were nakedly partisan and biased and the founders were well aware of it, yes, the first amendment protects journalists who produce biased bullshit. You can only be prosecuted for slander and libel, and there is a high bar to prove it.
  - ekianjo 7y ago
    How about SuperMicro? Unproven accusations go unpunished?
crazygringo 7y ago
People keep repeating that here on HN as if it's a bad thing. New information moves markets, and the larger impact it has, the more it will move markets, because markets are built on information. And obviously the function of the free press is to uncover and disseminate new information, the more meaningful the better. So it's not underhanded -- it's noble and completely aligned with good. (Of course if reporters make up information or lie it's bad, but that's a separate issue, for which lazy or unethical reporters are generally fired.)
- neya 7y ago
  "Free press" doesn't mean you can skew facts to paint a deceptive picture as in this case, you can see the graphs. This is the same Bloomberg that reported about the Super Micro story and we all know what happened. There should also be some accountability and you can't just shrug it off because you're the "free press".

dredmorbius 7y ago

Bloomberg are not the sole source here: "Google owner Alphabet misses forecasts: Google's parent company, Alphabet, saw its shares drop in after-hours trading after the internet giant missed revenue forecasts" https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48099862 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48099862 "Alphabet revenue dented by cooling Google ad business" https://www.ft.com/content/01c12de0-6aa2-11e9-a9a5-351eeaef6d84 https://www.ft.com/content/01c12de0-6aa2-11e9-a9a5-351eeaef6... "Google parent's shares dive as YouTube changes, competition hurt revenue" https://reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUSKCN1S521N https://reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUSKCN1S521N

reaperducer 7y ago

Except it's not a Bloomberg story. It's numbers from Google's earnings reports, and every major financial publication is running similar reports. Don't blame the messenger if you don't like the message. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_the_messenger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_the_messenger