4 ms·

The media falls for bullshit all the time, Weapons of mass destruction, incubator babies in Kuwait, etc. They are in the business of making money and not gettin

The media falls for bullshit all the time, Weapons of mass destruction, incubator babies in Kuwait, etc. They are in the business of making money and not getting the story right and since there is hardley any consequences for them why would they care? Bloomberg here will blame its source and take no responsibility.

wklauss 8y ago
> They are in the business of making money and not getting the story right All business are "in the business of making money", that's what being a business is. What sets them apart is how they make it. In the case of media companies is, precisely, by getting the story right. A publisher that doesn't is more likely to lose influence and readership as time goes by. For a publication like Bloomberg, more so. So yeah, they do care. That doesn't mean they don't fall for scams or bad reporting. They do, but it's in their best interest not to do so. In this case, I'm sure Bloomberg is already frantically calling all the reporter sources. They should have done it before the piece was published, sure, and they'll sure blame the reporter and the sources, but I think it's disingenuous to think they just shrug these things off.
- AsyncAwait 8y ago
  > What sets them apart is how they make it. In the case of media companies is, precisely, by getting the story right. Ideally yes, but nowdays it seems to be rather; by getting the story framed exactly as their corporate owner wants them to frame it. Yes, they'll slowly loose credibility and in fact that is happening, but the process takes decades and is not likely to affect current reporters, if they lied in service of the status quo.
- usefulcat 8y ago
  > In the case of media companies is, precisely, by getting the story right. Strongly disagree. Media companies make money by publishing stories that people want to hear about.
- gdy 8y ago
  "In the case of media companies is, precisely, by getting the story right." Almost any article about Russia is a counter example to this.
stupidbird 8y ago
If newspapers were in it for the money they wouldn't be newspapers. It's not an incredibly lucrative business.
- usefulcat 8y ago
  Correlation != causation. The fact that most newspapers aren't lucrative doesn't mean they don't value profit.
  - spac 8y ago
    Bloomberg News is not a newspaper. The company makes money from selling terminals not news (although the terminal contains news, but it's easy to see that sensationalism is not what the customers pay for).
    - usefulcat 8y ago
      No one had to pay to read the SuperMicro story (the original one that started all this).
  - stupidbird 8y ago
    Sure, but they let everyone read this specific story for free. They could have easily kept it behind their paywall. Overall Bloomberg as a company does not sustain itself on news revenue.
spac 8y ago
Bloomberg makes money (a lot of!) from selling terminals, not news. There is literally no point in losing credibility on a story like this. Credible third-party information is the core of the business model and the news department takes that very seriously.

wklauss 8y ago

> They are in the business of making money and not getting the story right All business are "in the business of making money", that's what being a business is. What sets them apart is how they make it. In the case of media companies is, precisely, by getting the story right. A publisher that doesn't is more likely to lose influence and readership as time goes by. For a publication like Bloomberg, more so. So yeah, they do care. That doesn't mean they don't fall for scams or bad reporting. They do, but it's in their best interest not to do so. In this case, I'm sure Bloomberg is already frantically calling all the reporter sources. They should have done it before the piece was published, sure, and they'll sure blame the reporter and the sources, but I think it's disingenuous to think they just shrug these things off.

AsyncAwait 8y ago
> What sets them apart is how they make it. In the case of media companies is, precisely, by getting the story right. Ideally yes, but nowdays it seems to be rather; by getting the story framed exactly as their corporate owner wants them to frame it. Yes, they'll slowly loose credibility and in fact that is happening, but the process takes decades and is not likely to affect current reporters, if they lied in service of the status quo.
usefulcat 8y ago
> In the case of media companies is, precisely, by getting the story right. Strongly disagree. Media companies make money by publishing stories that people want to hear about.
gdy 8y ago
"In the case of media companies is, precisely, by getting the story right." Almost any article about Russia is a counter example to this.

stupidbird 8y ago

If newspapers were in it for the money they wouldn't be newspapers. It's not an incredibly lucrative business.

usefulcat 8y ago
Correlation != causation. The fact that most newspapers aren't lucrative doesn't mean they don't value profit.
- spac 8y ago
  Bloomberg News is not a newspaper. The company makes money from selling terminals not news (although the terminal contains news, but it's easy to see that sensationalism is not what the customers pay for).
  - usefulcat 8y ago
    No one had to pay to read the SuperMicro story (the original one that started all this).
- stupidbird 8y ago
  Sure, but they let everyone read this specific story for free. They could have easily kept it behind their paywall. Overall Bloomberg as a company does not sustain itself on news revenue.

spac 8y ago

Bloomberg makes money (a lot of!) from selling terminals, not news. There is literally no point in losing credibility on a story like this. Credible third-party information is the core of the business model and the news department takes that very seriously.