4 ms·

Because the incentives can create stories that are untrue or corrected later.

by akhatri_aus 8y ago

ccostes 8y ago
I think this is where editors would come in who (presumably) don't have the same incentives.
- philipov 8y ago
  that's quite a presumption
  - ggggtez 8y ago
    Not really. What do you think the role of an editor is exactly?
    - philipov 8y ago
      Do you mean in reality, or in hypothetical not-dysfunctional fantasy world? Because in reality, the job of an editor is to avoid being fired for angering the corporate sponsors/owner, and anything about ethics, or upholding the standards of the publication, is merely coincidental. The role of an editor is to implement the owner's plan for the publication, and that means their incentives are clearly aligned if that plan includes paying reporters more for stories that cause their audience to act.
      - Angostura 8y ago
        As someone who edited various technology magazines for a decade or so, I wish someone had told me this. There I was going through life, thinking my job was to ensure a mix of stories that would be interesting to the targeted readership, that read well, that could be properly 'stood up' as factual and didn't land us in too much legal trouble. Oh - and to make sure the pages were filled on time and budget and that the editorial staff were reasonably happy, and that we referred to companies in the singular.
        raxxorrax 8y ago
        Wasn't there an article about an editor of pc magazine getting fired for writing some slightly critical articles some weeks ago? I think the topic is how business interests from corporate sponsors are weighted against factual reporting. Not saying magazines have much choices, but manufacturers disallowing any criticism speaks volumes about their products. We should strive for more transparency here. Not that I would expect most tech articles to not be advertising these days. It has become a standard.
        Angostura 8y ago
        I've no doubt that there are some unscrupulous publishers. I worked at 4 different publishers over the years in the UK, 3 as an editor. The only times I spoke to the publisher about editorial content was (a) When we were producing the feature list for the year (those were heavy ad-gets) (b) on occasions where we had a good story that we thought could cause trouble so I wanted to consult a solicitor first.
  - PeterisP 8y ago
    That's a reasonable presumption - Bloomberg makes its money selling access to reliable information, the people buying their services are not reading Bloomberg for entertainment but in order to make financial decisions. The editors know where their paycheck comes from and, unlike most other news sources, have a strong incentive to avoid speculative clickbait.
    - philipov 8y ago
      Speculative clickbait is not the same as market-moving stories, and this isn't an article about Bloomberg paying reporters for clickbait. Market-moving stories are the ones valued by traders in making decisions, almost tautologically since trader decisions are the market. I don't see why the editors would have different incentives than the reporters.
- Bud 8y ago
  Evidence suggests otherwise.
manicdee 8y ago
Having to correct a story minutes after a market movement has reaped the company millions in transaction fees seems like a small burden to bear.
- frutiger 8y ago
  Bloomberg is not an exchange nor do they charge transaction fees.
  - genericacct 8y ago
    https://www.bloomberg.com/professional/product/multilateral-trading-facility/ https://www.bloomberg.com/professional/product/multilateral-...
    - frutiger 8y ago
      BMTF is a tiny separate arm of the Bloomberg group that is incidental to its main line of business. Bloomberg is primarily a data/analytics/news company.
- tomp 8y ago
  Market manipulation is a prison-worthy crime.
forkerenok 8y ago
In this case (assuming intent) they would get charged by SEC, wouldn't they?
- askmike 8y ago
  You can't design a system with (supposedly) misaligned incentives and hope the SEC will research everything and keep it fair. That would just shift the solution from: "Write articles that move markets" to: "Write articles that move markets in a way the SEC won't find out" Also how good do you think it would be for Bloomberg (from a PR perspective) if their reporters are getting charged left and right for market manipulation?

Because the incentives can create stories that are untrue or corrected later.

ccostes 8y ago

I think this is where editors would come in who (presumably) don't have the same incentives.

philipov 8y ago
that's quite a presumption
- ggggtez 8y ago
  Not really. What do you think the role of an editor is exactly?
  - philipov 8y ago
    Do you mean in reality, or in hypothetical not-dysfunctional fantasy world? Because in reality, the job of an editor is to avoid being fired for angering the corporate sponsors/owner, and anything about ethics, or upholding the standards of the publication, is merely coincidental. The role of an editor is to implement the owner's plan for the publication, and that means their incentives are clearly aligned if that plan includes paying reporters more for stories that cause their audience to act.
    - Angostura 8y ago
      As someone who edited various technology magazines for a decade or so, I wish someone had told me this. There I was going through life, thinking my job was to ensure a mix of stories that would be interesting to the targeted readership, that read well, that could be properly 'stood up' as factual and didn't land us in too much legal trouble. Oh - and to make sure the pages were filled on time and budget and that the editorial staff were reasonably happy, and that we referred to companies in the singular.
      - raxxorrax 8y ago
        Wasn't there an article about an editor of pc magazine getting fired for writing some slightly critical articles some weeks ago? I think the topic is how business interests from corporate sponsors are weighted against factual reporting. Not saying magazines have much choices, but manufacturers disallowing any criticism speaks volumes about their products. We should strive for more transparency here. Not that I would expect most tech articles to not be advertising these days. It has become a standard.
        Angostura 8y ago
        I've no doubt that there are some unscrupulous publishers. I worked at 4 different publishers over the years in the UK, 3 as an editor. The only times I spoke to the publisher about editorial content was (a) When we were producing the feature list for the year (those were heavy ad-gets) (b) on occasions where we had a good story that we thought could cause trouble so I wanted to consult a solicitor first.
- PeterisP 8y ago
  That's a reasonable presumption - Bloomberg makes its money selling access to reliable information, the people buying their services are not reading Bloomberg for entertainment but in order to make financial decisions. The editors know where their paycheck comes from and, unlike most other news sources, have a strong incentive to avoid speculative clickbait.
  - philipov 8y ago
    Speculative clickbait is not the same as market-moving stories, and this isn't an article about Bloomberg paying reporters for clickbait. Market-moving stories are the ones valued by traders in making decisions, almost tautologically since trader decisions are the market. I don't see why the editors would have different incentives than the reporters.
Bud 8y ago
Evidence suggests otherwise.

manicdee 8y ago

Having to correct a story minutes after a market movement has reaped the company millions in transaction fees seems like a small burden to bear.

frutiger 8y ago
Bloomberg is not an exchange nor do they charge transaction fees.
- genericacct 8y ago
  https://www.bloomberg.com/professional/product/multilateral-trading-facility/ https://www.bloomberg.com/professional/product/multilateral-...
  - frutiger 8y ago
    BMTF is a tiny separate arm of the Bloomberg group that is incidental to its main line of business. Bloomberg is primarily a data/analytics/news company.
tomp 8y ago
Market manipulation is a prison-worthy crime.

forkerenok 8y ago

In this case (assuming intent) they would get charged by SEC, wouldn't they?

askmike 8y ago
You can't design a system with (supposedly) misaligned incentives and hope the SEC will research everything and keep it fair. That would just shift the solution from: "Write articles that move markets" to: "Write articles that move markets in a way the SEC won't find out" Also how good do you think it would be for Bloomberg (from a PR perspective) if their reporters are getting charged left and right for market manipulation?