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

Post by MertsA » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 4:15 PM UTC

aguyfromnb wrote: post #24

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-...

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.

Post by crispyambulance » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 4:22 PM UTC

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…

Post by tristor » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 4:25 PM UTC

conistonwater wrote: post #33

VBprogrammer wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No individual journalist wants to be known for getting a story wrong, so incentives are pretty strong to begin with. I think in a lot of places this isn't nearly as true as maybe it once was. The top selling newspapers in the UK pretty much habitually print anything that drives sales / their agenda and when they get a slap on the wrist they just print a minimal viable retraction. When that occasionally lands them i…

The top selling newspapers in the UK are tabloids though, rather than well-respected publications. I don't think that contradicts smt88's point.

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 4:39 PM UTC

stoicShell wrote: post #106

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 think it's the same when we ship beta software to users and then expect the first batch to essentially debug it — then comes the proverbial ".1" patch which fixes most glaring issues. (as if they weren't obvious in the first place) Now why do we do that in software? because "agile", cost, "let's ship and risk breaking some things and see what happens? We'll fix things later in some update, on a need-to basis" Well…

Post by gjstein » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 4:48 PM UTC

derision wrote: post #129

nstj wrote: post #127

@dang - arguably misleading title, please consider renaming to “Bloomberg LP fined €5m for publishing fake press release”. Current title can be read that Michael Bloomberg was personally fined.

i'm not sure most people see "Bloomberg" and think of the person rather than the company