Live data from Hacker News

Bloomberg chief editor: We publish too many mediocre and long enterprise stories

talkingbiznews.com

21–30 of 206 posts

Re: Bloomberg chief editor: We publish too many mediocre and long enterprise stories

#21

This memo highlights a problem that I’ve noticed recently as the public debates the legitimacy and effectiveness of the media. This chief editor is basically telling his people to write what readers want to read. But there’s a difference between what readers always want to read and what may be necessary to read. For example, if people only read what they wanted to read, how many people would really take interest in a…

> how many people would really take interest in a possibly boring but important scandal? The Catholic Church sex abuse scandal comes to mind.

There's very little that is more attention grabbing than sex scandal. Except sex scandal involving children. Or one involving an large powerful institution around which political and culture war controversy (both internal and external to the institution) is constant, especially on sexual issues.

> It’s impact was global, but it’s not really related to domestic political battles

Yes, it was, especially because the Catholic Church is perpetually engaged in those battles on sexual issues, and because the scandal immediately intersected with the debate on those issues, as well as ongoing internal organizational debates in the institution such as the role of celibacy and homosexuals in the clergy that directly overlapped with the political and culture war issues the Church is regularly engaged in.

So, yeah, worst possible example, even if one grants that you might have a generally valid point.

Re: Bloomberg chief editor: We publish too many mediocre and long enterprise stories

#22
post #13

Oh, are they finally apologizing (or providing proof for) their story The Big Hack about chips the size of a grain of rice China puts in computers made by Dell and Apple and others? No? Not a word about it? It’s almost like they’re continuing to pretend that their giant journalistic screwup doesn’t exist. Don’t care. ‘Are articles are too long’. How about yours articles are untrustworthy?

> It’s almost like they’re continuing to pretend that their giant journalistic screwup doesn’t exist

It's exactly like. They did not publish a retraction because they stand behind what they wrote. But as long as they keep it short...

Re: Bloomberg chief editor: We publish too many mediocre and long enterprise stories

#23
post #13

Oh, are they finally apologizing (or providing proof for) their story The Big Hack about chips the size of a grain of rice China puts in computers made by Dell and Apple and others? No? Not a word about it? It’s almost like they’re continuing to pretend that their giant journalistic screwup doesn’t exist. Don’t care. ‘Are articles are too long’. How about yours articles are untrustworthy?

Yep. I still don't understand how this didn't completely blew up. That was a gigantic story that basically turned out to be complete BS, I haven't read anything by Bloomberg since.

Re: Bloomberg chief editor: We publish too many mediocre and long enterprise stories

#24

This memo highlights a problem that I’ve noticed recently as the public debates the legitimacy and effectiveness of the media. This chief editor is basically telling his people to write what readers want to read. But there’s a difference between what readers always want to read and what may be necessary to read. For example, if people only read what they wanted to read, how many people would really take interest in a…

I think his point was more well-intentioned. If writers wanted to quickly get an issue out to print (or publish), they could make it easily readable at <400 words. But if it's a tell-all, he gives them full authority to make it a long piece. If it's a particularly boring subject then maybe the writers will start making those stories shorter? In that case, the important details would still be there, just not as well explained. I don't think this restricts their journalism at all.

Re: Bloomberg chief editor: We publish too many mediocre and long enterprise stories

#25
post #13

Oh, are they finally apologizing (or providing proof for) their story The Big Hack about chips the size of a grain of rice China puts in computers made by Dell and Apple and others? No? Not a word about it? It’s almost like they’re continuing to pretend that their giant journalistic screwup doesn’t exist. Don’t care. ‘Are articles are too long’. How about yours articles are untrustworthy?

Some bloggers (well gruber at least) still bring this up any time they newly cite Bloomberg. It does defy explanation that the publication has not been able to offer proof of the claims from that article or simply rescind it.

Re: Bloomberg chief editor: We publish too many mediocre and long enterprise stories

#26
post #7

Articles in The Economist are usually a better investment of my time. I was originally introduced to the magazine by a teacher in high school, but I've come to learn that many other people weren't as fortunate. https://www.economist.com/

Mr. Polazzo?

Re: Bloomberg chief editor: We publish too many mediocre and long enterprise stories

#27
post #7

Articles in The Economist are usually a better investment of my time. I was originally introduced to the magazine by a teacher in high school, but I've come to learn that many other people weren't as fortunate. https://www.economist.com/

I find that Economist articles about things I don't know much about are great. But the more I know about the topic, the less I think of the article.

It isn't just the spin; sometimes you can guess whom they were talking to and whom they weren't by how wrong and they way they get something wrong.

Re: Bloomberg chief editor: We publish too many mediocre and long enterprise stories

#28
post #13

Oh, are they finally apologizing (or providing proof for) their story The Big Hack about chips the size of a grain of rice China puts in computers made by Dell and Apple and others? No? Not a word about it? It’s almost like they’re continuing to pretend that their giant journalistic screwup doesn’t exist. Don’t care. ‘Are articles are too long’. How about yours articles are untrustworthy?

What astounds me is not only have they not apologized, they haven't even done a back-page, quiet retraction. They still present the story as if it's "News".

Re: Bloomberg chief editor: We publish too many mediocre and long enterprise stories

#29
A lot of good writing advice in this memo:

The key person to think about is the reader.

People generally read only one screen and SELDOM read more than two screens. (A screen typically is around 300 words.)

A long story on a complicated topic can save readers time if it replaces the need to read a lot of short ones.

Readers either want to have a quick piece of information or something that justifies the longer read.

A good rule of thumb is that stories should either be shorter than 400 words or longer than 900.

Taking 700 words or 800 words to make a single point will just annoy readers.

Keep it short. Think of the reader.

Re: Bloomberg chief editor: We publish too many mediocre and long enterprise stories

#30
post #13

Oh, are they finally apologizing (or providing proof for) their story The Big Hack about chips the size of a grain of rice China puts in computers made by Dell and Apple and others? No? Not a word about it? It’s almost like they’re continuing to pretend that their giant journalistic screwup doesn’t exist. Don’t care. ‘Are articles are too long’. How about yours articles are untrustworthy?

They should have been sued, and not from a being petty perspective. Libel laws are a huge part of what keeps the media trustworthy.

I'm also curious why they were not sued, and tbh that makes me wonder...

Post reply on HN