3 ms·

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.
• jackconnor 8y ago
  Omg this is true, I thought you were being hyperbolic. This is one of the most disgusting things I've ever heard in journalism, https://www.businessinsider.com/bloomberg-reporters-compensation-2013-12 https://www.businessinsider.com/bloomberg-reporters-compensa...