41–50 of 270 posts
In today's world of race to the finish (/ bottom) journalism, I think it should be mandatory for all publications to have an addendum to each article, which contains: * list of sources of information and original research conducted ( including names of interviewees, only anonymized with a justification, links, etc ) * a sign-off by a journalist (note: not supposed to imply responsibility or liability for accuracy of…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This story is so odd to me. On the one hand, if true, all Bloomberg had to do was produce evidence; a single compromised server. They didn't. On the other hand, if the journalists fabricated the entire story, saying that all these big companies were hacked, why didn't anybody sue them? It was a major accusation! It just kinda...disappeared.
>It just kinda...disappeared. This might be the answer to you second question. No one seems to have taken the Bloomberg story to be true. Just went "that's dumb" and dropped it. In fact the only times I've ever seen it resurface is in a context to point out something negative about Bloomberg (like now), not the companies named in the article. Sort of like the Elon Musk defamation case that just ended. Plaintiff didn'…
In today's world of race to the finish (/ bottom) journalism, I think it should be mandatory for all publications to have an addendum to each article, which contains: * list of sources of information and original research conducted ( including names of interviewees, only anonymized with a justification, links, etc ) * a sign-off by a journalist (note: not supposed to imply responsibility or liability for accuracy of…
This assumes the goal of news is to be accurate. It is not. News exists to sell advertising and media advertising is presented in (i.e. TV, Newspaper, Website subscriptions). Funny thing is the news industry gets it right a lot more than state-controlled news agencies. The incentive is there - selling more - to take some huge risks to find big stories and report on the powerful, rich and elites bad behavior. If you i…
Do you remember the Bloomberg article about Big China Chip Hack? About Apple was been refuted, debunked, and ridiculed. See https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/10/04/editorial-a-year-...
In today's world of race to the finish (/ bottom) journalism, I think it should be mandatory for all publications to have an addendum to each article, which contains: * list of sources of information and original research conducted ( including names of interviewees, only anonymized with a justification, links, etc ) * a sign-off by a journalist (note: not supposed to imply responsibility or liability for accuracy of…
In today's world of race to the finish (/ bottom) journalism, I think it should be mandatory for all publications to have an addendum to each article, which contains: * list of sources of information and original research conducted ( including names of interviewees, only anonymized with a justification, links, etc ) * a sign-off by a journalist (note: not supposed to imply responsibility or liability for accuracy of…
Well-respected publications have internal checks and balances that do all these things for investigative stories already. You seem not to know enough about how the journalism industry has solved these issues to make a proposal. The system does work fairly well. Screw-ups of investigations and scoops are big news because they're rare among serious journalistic outfits. No individual journalist wants to be known for ge…
It just proved that "journalists" weren't doing any research and were just scraping wikipedia. And getting paid to do it.
I remember when Michael Jackson died and channel Five here in the UK had a hastily arranged "Michael Jackson Special" with library shots telling his life story. The narration was word-for-word the Wikipedia article. Disgusting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> “We are a victim of a hoax,” Vinci was the victim of a hoax, Bloomberg was happy to report it without doing enough fact checking, they were spreading and part of the hoax.
If the Vinci website itself had been hacked, and the faux press release distributed from there, Bloomberg would obviously have a strong case. That doesn't seem to be the situation though, and so I'm curious to what channel this fake press release came through, e.g. a spoof email or Twitter account.
In today's world of race to the finish (/ bottom) journalism, I think it should be mandatory for all publications to have an addendum to each article, which contains: * list of sources of information and original research conducted ( including names of interviewees, only anonymized with a justification, links, etc ) * a sign-off by a journalist (note: not supposed to imply responsibility or liability for accuracy of…
Doesn't this violate the freedom of speech?
Bloomberg literally compensates its writers for moving markets. So, the super micro case, this one and many others before these..no surprises here.
It seems like that would make it extremely to keep journalistic integrity while working under such a compensation / commission structure. How are you supposed to trust a Bloomberg article when the writers are designing them specifically in a way to try and purposely move the market? They would have every incentive to exaggerate, embellish, and even go so far as lie as shown in this instance.