Bloomberg News: A Modest Strategy to Rule the World • Hacker News Board

Re: Bloomberg News: A Modest Strategy to Rule the World

#11

Post by jamesbressi » Mon, Nov 16, 2009, 12:42 AM UTC

Doesn't ANYONE notice the problem with this sentence?

“We want to be the world’s most influential news organization,” says Mr. Lack, who oversees Bloomberg’s television, radio and dot-com endeavors.

The most influential? If there was ever a more honest statement. Why should news be influential and not informational?

You aim for influence in the news because politics and business are at your mercy? I'm ok with that, but don't call yourself a "news" organization.

News is as cheap as love.

Re: Bloomberg News: A Modest Strategy to Rule the World

#12

Post by jakarta » Mon, Nov 16, 2009, 12:52 AM UTC

jamesbressi wrote: post #11

Doesn't ANYONE notice the problem with this sentence? “We want to be the world’s most influential news organization,” says Mr. Lack, who oversees Bloomberg’s television, radio and dot-com endeavors. The most influential? If there was ever a more honest statement. Why should news be influential and not informational? You aim for influence in the news because politics and business are at your mercy? I'm ok with that, b…

Yeah, but in order to get that quality information typically you need to be one of the higher regarded 'brand' news organizations. The journalists at the WSJ and the NYTimes are probably going to have better sources than those at Bloomberg and in turn break better stories... making them more "informational".

Re: Bloomberg News: A Modest Strategy to Rule the World

#13

Post by jamesbressi » Mon, Nov 16, 2009, 1:42 PM UTC

jakarta wrote: post #12

jamesbressi wrote: post #11

Doesn't ANYONE notice the problem with this sentence? “We want to be the world’s most influential news organization,” says Mr. Lack, who oversees Bloomberg’s television, radio and dot-com endeavors. The most influential? If there was ever a more honest statement. Why should news be influential and not informational? You aim for influence in the news because politics and business are at your mercy? I'm ok with that, b…

Yeah, but in order to get that quality information typically you need to be one of the higher regarded 'brand' news organizations. The journalists at the WSJ and the NYTimes are probably going to have better sources than those at Bloomberg and in turn break better stories... making them more "informational".

I understand your logic, but starting with the Drudge report in 1998 -- when they were the first to break the Monica and Clinton scandal -- it looks like the flowered garden is no longer and anyone can break a story.

I don't believe it is "getting quality information".

No, it is "controlling information."

Re: Bloomberg News: A Modest Strategy to Rule the World

#14

Post by elblanco » Tue, Nov 17, 2009, 5:17 AM UTC

JimmyL wrote: post #8

Bloomberg's offices are, depending on who you ask, either fantastic or terrible. Yes, they've got a bunch of art and screens everywhere (including a curved escalator, which I had never seen before I went there). Yes, there are some great free snacks. Yes, there is some nice public art, and a decent corporate dining room. On the other hand, it's still somewhat of a sweatshop. The whole office is open plan - the highes…

I remember stepping into part of a fountain that looked like an ultra-glossy floor next to some green plastic stairs the first time I was in a Bloomberg office. The visual and aural clutter there was remarkable.