Bloomberg already use the story in a wrong way which the original source didn't agree. But let's go deeper: 1. In first report, Bloomberg have strong specific

Bloomberg already use the story in a wrong way which the original source didn't agree. But let's go deeper: 1. In first report, Bloomberg have strong specific claims: China already hacked the server used in some big companies. it's PLA who did the tampering. They have evidences/sources 2. In second report they provide weak evidence that not related to the strong claims: It's a general security issue all over the industry, A lot of hardware could be tampered, etc,etc. Although maybe exaggerated I believe it's true. So talking about general security risk is already shifting the focus. If there's a 2nd report, it should be address the conflicts of the denial from Apple and Amazon which cause the dispute, not talking about some thing that can easily reach consensus and close related to the real controversial topic. If they want to talk general security issue, they should make it clear and better in separate time. By putting those 2 different things together, it makes an impression to average readers that 2nd part can support the 1st part. Which seems to me it’s a dishonest practise.