6 ms·

As a press outlet they have a pretty solid defense in the first amendment

jackconnor 8y ago
Well yes, haha, but if they knew or should've known that what they were reported was false and it causes monetary damages, then they can be taken to civil court. So, if they are sued they will be fighting to prove that they believed this article was true when they published it. Since Joe Fitzpatrick, one of the sources, has already come out and said that he speculated some hypotheticals that then made it into the story as fact, it doesn't seem that hard to prove that they published something they weren't sure was fact, which did cause a lot of monetary damages to quite a few companies.
- rconti 8y ago
  It's the same thing as "Funding secured!"
  - kevinmchugh 8y ago
    except that: bloomberg is a press outlet, musk isn't, and bloomberg has no responsibility to the shareholders of the companies they covered, whereas musk is CEO.
hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
Tell that to Gawker.
- ascagnel_ 8y ago
  Gawker was bankrupted because they were stupid -- they were ordered by a judge to take down a video, and defied that court order. If you knowingly and intentionally defy a court order, and then gloat about how you're doing it, you're going to get burnt by any judge, no matter how willing they are to listen to your core argument.
steve19 8y ago
They pay their journalists bonuses if they move the market. That gives some pretty perverse incentives to the journalists.
- kevinmchugh 8y ago
  What's perverse about it? Bloomberg decided that the market is a good way to measure impact of their stories. They're business reporters, so that makes sense. The incentive is not directional; it doesn't rely on reporters causing a stock to lose value or gain it.
  - steve19 8y ago
    Imagine paying reporters by how many people they got arrested. Sure would result in some terrible criminals being locked up, but it may well result in innocent people going to prison as well.
    - kevinmchugh 8y ago
      That sounds like a bad system but I don't understand its relation to business reporters releasing stories that move the market
  - sooheon 8y ago
    > The incentive is not directional The magnitude matters. Meaning journalists have an incentive to stretch the truth in either direction, as long as it'll get a reaction. A journalist now has to weigh this monetary incentive against their other incentives for being non-hyperbolic, truthful journalists.
    - kevinmchugh 8y ago
      The business insider article linked above makes it sound like a relatively nuanced measure. If the article makes a big splash but then gets wiped away by follow-up reporting, it doesn't sound like it gets rewarded. Think about articles that don't move the market: did they contain novel, important information? If so, why didn't the market move? It seems like this incentive encourages prioritizing stories which are unreported and meaningful.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
giggles_giggles 8y ago
IANAL but running a story about how a bunch of companies' products are insecure if Bloomberg knew it was false and those companies could show that Bloomberg knew it was false could be libel.
EpicEng 8y ago
The first amendment doesn't protect you against libel or ham to your reputation.

Well yes, haha, but if they knew or should've known that what they were reported was false and it causes monetary damages, then they can be taken to civil court. So, if they are sued they will be fighting to prove that they believed this article was true when they published it. Since Joe Fitzpatrick, one of the sources, has already come out and said that he speculated some hypotheticals that then made it into the story as fact, it doesn't seem that hard to prove that they published something they weren't sure was fact, which did cause a lot of monetary damages to quite a few companies.

rconti 8y ago
It's the same thing as "Funding secured!"
- kevinmchugh 8y ago
  except that: bloomberg is a press outlet, musk isn't, and bloomberg has no responsibility to the shareholders of the companies they covered, whereas musk is CEO.

hn_throwaway_99 8y ago

Tell that to Gawker.

ascagnel_ 8y ago
Gawker was bankrupted because they were stupid -- they were ordered by a judge to take down a video, and defied that court order. If you knowingly and intentionally defy a court order, and then gloat about how you're doing it, you're going to get burnt by any judge, no matter how willing they are to listen to your core argument.

steve19 8y ago

They pay their journalists bonuses if they move the market. That gives some pretty perverse incentives to the journalists.

kevinmchugh 8y ago
What's perverse about it? Bloomberg decided that the market is a good way to measure impact of their stories. They're business reporters, so that makes sense. The incentive is not directional; it doesn't rely on reporters causing a stock to lose value or gain it.
- steve19 8y ago
  Imagine paying reporters by how many people they got arrested. Sure would result in some terrible criminals being locked up, but it may well result in innocent people going to prison as well.
  - kevinmchugh 8y ago
    That sounds like a bad system but I don't understand its relation to business reporters releasing stories that move the market
- sooheon 8y ago
  > The incentive is not directional The magnitude matters. Meaning journalists have an incentive to stretch the truth in either direction, as long as it'll get a reaction. A journalist now has to weigh this monetary incentive against their other incentives for being non-hyperbolic, truthful journalists.
  - kevinmchugh 8y ago
    The business insider article linked above makes it sound like a relatively nuanced measure. If the article makes a big splash but then gets wiped away by follow-up reporting, it doesn't sound like it gets rewarded. Think about articles that don't move the market: did they contain novel, important information? If so, why didn't the market move? It seems like this incentive encourages prioritizing stories which are unreported and meaningful.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

giggles_giggles 8y ago

IANAL but running a story about how a bunch of companies' products are insecure if Bloomberg knew it was false and those companies could show that Bloomberg knew it was false could be libel.

EpicEng 8y ago

The first amendment doesn't protect you against libel or ham to your reputation.