Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

France's AMF watchdog fines Bloomberg €5M over Vinci hoax

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 270 posts

Re: France's AMF watchdog fines Bloomberg €5M over Vinci hoax

#91

Post by willyt »

the_duke wrote: post #3

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…

And make journalism a registered profession like doctors, dentists, structural engineers, architects etc with a legally enforced professional code of conduct. Every article should be cryptographically signed by the journalist in a way that links to their professional registration. If a story is found to be inaccurate then this gets noted on the journalists professional reputation page at the 'institute of journalists' or whatever you call it, a whole bunch of stories with major inaccuracies would lead to them being struck off, to be judged by a jury consisting of other journalists, lay representatives and representatives of the legal profession[0]. If you want to use the word 'News' anywhere to describe your newspaper or website, then you must use a registered journalists and their reputation badges would need to be displayed by every article.

[0]This is how it works for Architects, I don't see why journalists should be any different given that they can influence the direction of whole democracies.

Re: France's AMF watchdog fines Bloomberg €5M over Vinci hoax

#92

Post by joshlegs »

smt88 wrote: post #13
the_duke wrote: post #3

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…

I like how OP commenter is essentially arguing that the government should regulate journalism, which fundamentally misunderstands the role of journalists -- that is, it is a direct check and balance on the government, except that it relies on the free market for competitive regulation. A journalism outlet which consistently gets things wrong SHOULD fail. Trying to regulate journalism massively fails not only in its intent to reduce errors, but also in its implementation.

Re: France's AMF watchdog fines Bloomberg €5M over Vinci hoax

#93

Post by ht85 »

lbenes wrote: post #85
ajsnigrutin wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd be happy just if they were forbidden to change articles after publishing, and not say that. Because currently, they post some bullshit news and create some random outrage. Then someone points at some bullshit claim in their article, and they just quietly change the article (remove the claim, add "allegedly", etc.), and act as nothing was wrong. Or in worst case scenario, they quietly remove the whole article.

I've seen this accusation thrown out there on social media a few times now. When I've asked for examples, no one been able to provide a list showing that this is actually a systemic problem. With resources like the Internet Archive it should be trivial to prove that this really a problem. Can you back up your claims? Journalists are people and make mistakes. But overall, respected institutions like NYT, WSJ, WaPo, an…

What about this [1] ? It is from "respected" WaPo, and this is one of the most mind blowing examples.

You might not want to go through the 1h30 rant from Richard Lewis, so feel free to skip to 31:00 and 34:30 for the content of the original article.

I really don't know what to make of this. I just can't imagine what would prompt people to write and then actually publish this.

You can read the comments on the article [2], there is no errata on the article and I haven't seen any official response from the Washington Post.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fay_X1Cu9Uc

[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obituaries/abu-bakr-al-...

Edit: Actually there is an official response, at 39:20, a tweet (sigh) which might be even more scandalous than that headline

Re: France's AMF watchdog fines Bloomberg €5M over Vinci hoax

#94

Post by humanrebar »

willyt wrote: post #91
the_duke wrote: post #3

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…

And make journalism a registered profession like doctors, dentists, structural engineers, architects etc with a legally enforced professional code of conduct. Every article should be cryptographically signed by the journalist in a way that links to their professional registration. If a story is found to be inaccurate then this gets noted on the journalists professional reputation page at the 'institute of journalists…

Because some bully will decide that his opponents are all liars, revoke their credentials, and ban their speech. This happens all the time around the world.

Re: France's AMF watchdog fines Bloomberg €5M over Vinci hoax

#95

Post by humanrebar »

ComodoHacker wrote: post #41
the_duke wrote: post #3

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…

So another problem market can't solve?

This opinion presumes anything can adequately solve the problem without significant downsides.

Re: France's AMF watchdog fines Bloomberg €5M over Vinci hoax

#96

Post by viridian »

lbenes wrote: post #85
ajsnigrutin wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd be happy just if they were forbidden to change articles after publishing, and not say that. Because currently, they post some bullshit news and create some random outrage. Then someone points at some bullshit claim in their article, and they just quietly change the article (remove the claim, add "allegedly", etc.), and act as nothing was wrong. Or in worst case scenario, they quietly remove the whole article.

I've seen this accusation thrown out there on social media a few times now. When I've asked for examples, no one been able to provide a list showing that this is actually a systemic problem. With resources like the Internet Archive it should be trivial to prove that this really a problem. Can you back up your claims? Journalists are people and make mistakes. But overall, respected institutions like NYT, WSJ, WaPo, an…

You cite the Wall Street Journal as a respected institution, but I know I've seen them do this. Part of the problem with this type of thing is that publications often go out of their way to erase the existence of an aritcle if they intend to delete it.

Here's an example of an articles scrubbed from existence, including from the internet archive:

https://web.archive.org/web/20170301000000*/http://www.wsj.c...

http://www.wsj.com/article_email/hillary-clinton-vs-foia-144...

It's also unavailable, but searchable via google. Google simply shows a 404 page from the WSJ as the top result. The WSJ has never formally retracted this either.

Now since this is the WSJ, obviously the article was copied wholesale and pasted into blogs and the like regardless, so it can't be completely scrubbed. As a matter of fact, a search for:

"The filing was a response to a FOIA lawsuit brought in March by conservative organization Citizens United" will bring up many blogs with the full text of the article, but that doesn't change the fact that WSJ silently scrubbed the article from the internet archive, their own website, and the google cache.

Re: France's AMF watchdog fines Bloomberg €5M over Vinci hoax

#97

Post by erk__ »

auiya wrote: post #60
the_duke wrote: post #3

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…

You don't need all that, you only need legal repercussions for inaccuracy. I understand there are European and Asian countries with laws like this? Is anyone familiar with how often such incursions are prosecuted?

In denmark we have something called Pressenævnet (Danish Press Council), they can not fine companies but they can force them to have a have an article that says that there were an error in their article, they can also send them on to other institutions if they think that it was criminal negliance. They also post all the cases publicly after they are done. What they can do is defined in the "The Media Liability Act", and what they see as pad jounlalism is defined in the "The Press Ethical Rules" both are linked below if you are interested.

Example of case [english]: https://www.pressenaevnet.dk/case-example/

The Media Liability Act: https://www.pressenaevnet.dk/media-liability-act/

The Press Ethical Rules: https://www.pressenaevnet.dk/press-ethical-rules/

Re: France's AMF watchdog fines Bloomberg €5M over Vinci hoax

#99

Post by duxup »

fbn79 wrote: post #11

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-...

I'm still not sure what to think of that.

I don't think there's much of any "evidence" to prove it and a hack like that is pretty.

Then again nobody ... did anything after that either and everyone responded kinda awkwardly about it.

I can't help but wonder if they got it dead wrong, but anyone clarifying or suing to prove otherwise would expose something else and so ... nobody talks?

Re: France's AMF watchdog fines Bloomberg €5M over Vinci hoax

#100

Post by humanrebar »

swebs wrote: post #49
singularity2001 wrote: post #17

Doesn't this violate the freedom of speech?

The French constitution does not guarantee Freedom of Speech. That is a uniquely American thing.

Eh. The original philosophy, liberalism, is European in origin, including some notable French contributions.
Post reply on HN