3 ms·

"This piece looks likes little more than propaganda from the credit reporting agencies. Shame on you Bloomberg." No, it's not propaganda, it's regular journali

"This piece looks likes little more than propaganda from the credit reporting agencies. Shame on you Bloomberg." No, it's not propaganda, it's regular journalism. Google and FB are both 'large corps' whom journo bosses would be weary of offending, so no. Whenever a journalist 'names names' of big companies, they're probably doing regular journalism. The bad stuff happens when stories are suppressed to avoid upsetting advertisers.

bogomipz 9y ago
Really, an article in the wake of the most significant data breach in the US telling me to forget about that breach and think about something else? The first two words of this title are "Forget Equifax ..." An imperative. This is exactly propaganda. >"Whenever a journalist 'names names' of big companies, they're probably doing regular journalism." What? Since when is using proper nouns a defining characteristic of "regular journalism"? That is a ridiculous statement. >"The bad stuff happens when stories are suppressed to avoid upsetting advertisers." Do you see many ads for Google on Bloomberg? No. There is zero risk there at all. Bloomberg is not in the ad business. The real bad stuff happens when propaganda masquerades as journalism.
- alexasmyths 9y ago
  There is zero possibility this is a propaganda piece for Equifax. Bloomberg is a fairly respectable entity, they just don't do the bidding of arbitrary 'big corps' against other 'arbitrary big corps'. As far as 'Google not advertising on Bloomberg' - my friend - Google owns the internet. Every web site on planet earth is 100% beholden to search results. Bloomberg lives and dies on Google results. Google has been known to fuddy with search results for direct competitors, so if Bloomberg needs to be afraid of someone, it's Google - moreover - they have nothing to gain from doing a 'pro Equifax' propaganda piece. There is corporate influence and national propaganda in journalism - but this is not it. This is just regular journalism. And I for one support the premise. Equifax is irrelevant. Google and FB together, are almost 100% of the risk. They have 'everything' on us.
  - bogomipz 9y ago
    >"Bloomberg is a fairly respectable entity, they just don't do the bidding of arbitrary 'big corps' against other 'arbitrary big corps'" Firstly there is not one "Bloomberg." There are many different Bloomberg companies and Bloomberg News regularly publishes questionable and fluffy pieces. See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-nelson/bloomberg-news-refuses-to_b_650984.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-nelson/bloomberg-news-ref... You might also want to look up Randolph Hearst and the term Yellow Journalism if you are so naive to believe that "respectable newspapers" whatever that means don't publish propaganda. See also Judith Miller and how the NYTimes, another "respectable paper" sold the Iraq War if you're still not convinced that propaganda pieces are a real thing: https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2014/07/01/how-the-iraq-war-still-haunts-new-york-times/199946 https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2014/07/01/how-the-iraq-wa... >"As far as 'Google not advertising on Bloomberg' - my friend - Google owns the internet. Every web site on planet earth is 100% beholden to search results. Bloomberg lives and dies on Google results." I am not your friend and honestly you seem like a troll. Bloomberg does not need Google. Bloomberg is foremost a very successful financial services company and software company. And as distant third a media company. Bloomberg L.P does billions of dollars in revenue a year selling service to the financial industry. They do not need Google search results at all. Maybe you should read up on Bloomberg L.P a bit. So no, they don't "live and die by Google results."

bogomipz 9y ago

Really, an article in the wake of the most significant data breach in the US telling me to forget about that breach and think about something else? The first two words of this title are "Forget Equifax ..." An imperative. This is exactly propaganda. >"Whenever a journalist 'names names' of big companies, they're probably doing regular journalism." What? Since when is using proper nouns a defining characteristic of "regular journalism"? That is a ridiculous statement. >"The bad stuff happens when stories are suppressed to avoid upsetting advertisers." Do you see many ads for Google on Bloomberg? No. There is zero risk there at all. Bloomberg is not in the ad business. The real bad stuff happens when propaganda masquerades as journalism.

alexasmyths 9y ago
There is zero possibility this is a propaganda piece for Equifax. Bloomberg is a fairly respectable entity, they just don't do the bidding of arbitrary 'big corps' against other 'arbitrary big corps'. As far as 'Google not advertising on Bloomberg' - my friend - Google owns the internet. Every web site on planet earth is 100% beholden to search results. Bloomberg lives and dies on Google results. Google has been known to fuddy with search results for direct competitors, so if Bloomberg needs to be afraid of someone, it's Google - moreover - they have nothing to gain from doing a 'pro Equifax' propaganda piece. There is corporate influence and national propaganda in journalism - but this is not it. This is just regular journalism. And I for one support the premise. Equifax is irrelevant. Google and FB together, are almost 100% of the risk. They have 'everything' on us.
- bogomipz 9y ago
  >"Bloomberg is a fairly respectable entity, they just don't do the bidding of arbitrary 'big corps' against other 'arbitrary big corps'" Firstly there is not one "Bloomberg." There are many different Bloomberg companies and Bloomberg News regularly publishes questionable and fluffy pieces. See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-nelson/bloomberg-news-refuses-to_b_650984.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-nelson/bloomberg-news-ref... You might also want to look up Randolph Hearst and the term Yellow Journalism if you are so naive to believe that "respectable newspapers" whatever that means don't publish propaganda. See also Judith Miller and how the NYTimes, another "respectable paper" sold the Iraq War if you're still not convinced that propaganda pieces are a real thing: https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2014/07/01/how-the-iraq-war-still-haunts-new-york-times/199946 https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2014/07/01/how-the-iraq-wa... >"As far as 'Google not advertising on Bloomberg' - my friend - Google owns the internet. Every web site on planet earth is 100% beholden to search results. Bloomberg lives and dies on Google results." I am not your friend and honestly you seem like a troll. Bloomberg does not need Google. Bloomberg is foremost a very successful financial services company and software company. And as distant third a media company. Bloomberg L.P does billions of dollars in revenue a year selling service to the financial industry. They do not need Google search results at all. Maybe you should read up on Bloomberg L.P a bit. So no, they don't "live and die by Google results."