4 ms·

>What are the consequences for Bloomberg for this incompetence? You, not the general concept of the reader, but you personally neya. You stop trusting Bloomber

>What are the consequences for Bloomberg for this incompetence? You, not the general concept of the reader, but you personally neya. You stop trusting Bloomberg's reporting. That's the consequence. Their reputation suffers. Why do threads like this on HN always have such a desire for retribution?

bob_theslob646 8y ago
Their reporters are compensated based off of whether or not they move markets. Did you know that? (https://www.businessinsider.com/bloomberg-reporters-compensation-2013-12 https://www.businessinsider.com/bloomberg-reporters-compensa...)
- admax88q 8y ago
  That doesn't seem like a bad goal. It incentivizes stories that are important to their target market, and provides an easy way to measure that.
  - piva00 8y ago
    Or you can apply Goodhart's Law[0] and try to picture how wrong that can also go. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law
  - sosborn 8y ago
    > That doesn't seem like a bad goal. Like most sales goals, it seems reasonable. And then you remember that when it comes to pay, some people will do anything.
  - atoav 8y ago
    The thing is – if you have such an incentive and you are faced with the choice between reporting a boring truth or a spiced up lie, you will go for the later. And that has nothing to do with journalism anymore. It _could_ work – if the editors are espeically on the hunt for bogus stories.
    - occamrazor 8y ago
      This was the opening story on their homepage. There us no way the editors (and the legal department) did not scrutinize it thoroughly.
      - tertius 8y ago
        Just because it passes legal muster doesn't mean it's ethical. And I think that's one of the things that people are calling for.
- hopler 8y ago
  Unless their reporters are trading stocks of stories they cover, that's a non-issue.
  - jerf 8y ago
    The reason trading on stocks they cover is bad is that it creates an incentive to create news that may not be true to move the market, thus indirectly rewarding them with financial benefit. The policy of rewarding them for moving the market simply removes the intervening steps and directly rewards them. In concept, this only makes it worse. How much worse depends on how compensated they are, which I don't know. (e.g., if the bonus is $50 and your boss buys you a latte the next morning, it's not really that big a deal, vs. if it's $25,000 and everyone knows it's a fast track to promotions it's a pretty significant problem)
  - Angostura 8y ago
    I can see how it incentivises sensationalism though. I was a tech magazine editor. I did my utmost to check the veracity of stories. I would have hated to think that my journalists were being incentivised to exaggerate.
- Angostura 8y ago
  It's a shame Bloomerg isn't public. The retraction could earn someone a big bonus.
- daveFNbuck 8y ago
  If people stop trusting their stories, they won't move markets.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
tertius 8y ago
> Why do threads like this on HN always have such a desire for retribution? Seeing a situation where one person/group does something that negatively affects another group without consequence tends to have this emotional response from emotionally healthy individuals. Where do you see a problem with this type of response?
- voidmain 8y ago
  > Where do you see a problem with this type of response? "It is impractical because it is a descending spiral ending in destruction for all. The old law of an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind."
  - tertius 8y ago
    Or maybe a start to the democratic process to encourage lawmakers to discover nuance and legislate. Or maybe a good place for someone with knowledge to show why it's a bad idea and what the arguments are that have been struggled with. One person getting irked because another happily destroys reputation without any consequence is natural. Reputation is too important. A single person wanting to see consequence does not create a mob that firebombs their offices.
    - maemilius 8y ago
      I feel like there's an argument to be made that every firebombing mob started with a single person wishing some consequence. An idea has to start somewhere.
      - tertius 8y ago
        Well yes. But that doesn't mean we should outlaw speech... Because speech leads to good things a lot more often than firebombing mobs. Those people we can put in jail. Only those. The rest are helpful or neutral, even if you don't agree with them. Democracy (in any form) grows stronger with dissent/speech.
MagnumOpus 8y ago
Hundreds of locked-in AAPL shareholders who react with venom to anyone perceived to be hurting their financial performance, irrespective of truth or morality. (Same is true for FB and GOOG.)
ekianjo 8y ago
> Why do threads like this on HN always have such a desire for retribution? Let's say the Bloomberg article incurred 50% loss of revenues after it was published for Super Micro. (just making up numbers for the sake of the argument). Following this, Super Micro would have to scale down their operations and potentially fire people. That's just the same thing as sending a DMCA request on Youtube for something that is someone's own work. Currently it's "free" to do so, but don't you think there should be consequences in destroying someone's else business / reputation / work? How would you feel if it happened to you?
- User9991 8y ago
  >Let's say the Bloomberg article incurred 50% loss of revenues after it was published for Super Micro. Except none of this happened, so it's a straw man. And if it did, and SM were damaged, they would sue. That's how the justice system works.
- kllrnohj 8y ago
  Bloomberg has no intrinsic power over the revenue of Super Micro. They only have that influence because people trust them. People only trust them because their reports tend to be trustworthy. False reports harm Bloomberg, as it erode their trustworthiness and trustworthiness is very nearly their only actual value/product. False reporting is inherently its own repercussion/consequence here. This is different from DMCA as that has power granted to it by law, not by inherent trust. DMCA does also have consequences for fake claims, so it's a false equivalency here anyway.
scottlocklin 8y ago
> Why do threads like this on HN always have such a desire for retribution? I, personally, am sick of being lied to. Single source reportage violates journalism 101; they really should suffer some consequences, just as someone should pay for the 2008 bubble, the Iraq war (Bill Kristol ... finally losing one of his platforms) and any number of other examples of the managerial class' screw ups from the last 20 years.

bob_theslob646 8y ago

Their reporters are compensated based off of whether or not they move markets. Did you know that? (https://www.businessinsider.com/bloomberg-reporters-compensation-2013-12 https://www.businessinsider.com/bloomberg-reporters-compensa...)

admax88q 8y ago
That doesn't seem like a bad goal. It incentivizes stories that are important to their target market, and provides an easy way to measure that.
- piva00 8y ago
  Or you can apply Goodhart's Law[0] and try to picture how wrong that can also go. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law
- sosborn 8y ago
  > That doesn't seem like a bad goal. Like most sales goals, it seems reasonable. And then you remember that when it comes to pay, some people will do anything.
- atoav 8y ago
  The thing is – if you have such an incentive and you are faced with the choice between reporting a boring truth or a spiced up lie, you will go for the later. And that has nothing to do with journalism anymore. It _could_ work – if the editors are espeically on the hunt for bogus stories.
  - occamrazor 8y ago
    This was the opening story on their homepage. There us no way the editors (and the legal department) did not scrutinize it thoroughly.
    - tertius 8y ago
      Just because it passes legal muster doesn't mean it's ethical. And I think that's one of the things that people are calling for.
hopler 8y ago
Unless their reporters are trading stocks of stories they cover, that's a non-issue.
- jerf 8y ago
  The reason trading on stocks they cover is bad is that it creates an incentive to create news that may not be true to move the market, thus indirectly rewarding them with financial benefit. The policy of rewarding them for moving the market simply removes the intervening steps and directly rewards them. In concept, this only makes it worse. How much worse depends on how compensated they are, which I don't know. (e.g., if the bonus is $50 and your boss buys you a latte the next morning, it's not really that big a deal, vs. if it's $25,000 and everyone knows it's a fast track to promotions it's a pretty significant problem)
- Angostura 8y ago
  I can see how it incentivises sensationalism though. I was a tech magazine editor. I did my utmost to check the veracity of stories. I would have hated to think that my journalists were being incentivised to exaggerate.
Angostura 8y ago
It's a shame Bloomerg isn't public. The retraction could earn someone a big bonus.
daveFNbuck 8y ago
If people stop trusting their stories, they won't move markets.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

tertius 8y ago

> Why do threads like this on HN always have such a desire for retribution? Seeing a situation where one person/group does something that negatively affects another group without consequence tends to have this emotional response from emotionally healthy individuals. Where do you see a problem with this type of response?

voidmain 8y ago
> Where do you see a problem with this type of response? "It is impractical because it is a descending spiral ending in destruction for all. The old law of an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind."
- tertius 8y ago
  Or maybe a start to the democratic process to encourage lawmakers to discover nuance and legislate. Or maybe a good place for someone with knowledge to show why it's a bad idea and what the arguments are that have been struggled with. One person getting irked because another happily destroys reputation without any consequence is natural. Reputation is too important. A single person wanting to see consequence does not create a mob that firebombs their offices.
  - maemilius 8y ago
    I feel like there's an argument to be made that every firebombing mob started with a single person wishing some consequence. An idea has to start somewhere.
    - tertius 8y ago
      Well yes. But that doesn't mean we should outlaw speech... Because speech leads to good things a lot more often than firebombing mobs. Those people we can put in jail. Only those. The rest are helpful or neutral, even if you don't agree with them. Democracy (in any form) grows stronger with dissent/speech.

MagnumOpus 8y ago

Hundreds of locked-in AAPL shareholders who react with venom to anyone perceived to be hurting their financial performance, irrespective of truth or morality. (Same is true for FB and GOOG.)

ekianjo 8y ago

> Why do threads like this on HN always have such a desire for retribution? Let's say the Bloomberg article incurred 50% loss of revenues after it was published for Super Micro. (just making up numbers for the sake of the argument). Following this, Super Micro would have to scale down their operations and potentially fire people. That's just the same thing as sending a DMCA request on Youtube for something that is someone's own work. Currently it's "free" to do so, but don't you think there should be consequences in destroying someone's else business / reputation / work? How would you feel if it happened to you?

User9991 8y ago
>Let's say the Bloomberg article incurred 50% loss of revenues after it was published for Super Micro. Except none of this happened, so it's a straw man. And if it did, and SM were damaged, they would sue. That's how the justice system works.
kllrnohj 8y ago
Bloomberg has no intrinsic power over the revenue of Super Micro. They only have that influence because people trust them. People only trust them because their reports tend to be trustworthy. False reports harm Bloomberg, as it erode their trustworthiness and trustworthiness is very nearly their only actual value/product. False reporting is inherently its own repercussion/consequence here. This is different from DMCA as that has power granted to it by law, not by inherent trust. DMCA does also have consequences for fake claims, so it's a false equivalency here anyway.

scottlocklin 8y ago

> Why do threads like this on HN always have such a desire for retribution? I, personally, am sick of being lied to. Single source reportage violates journalism 101; they really should suffer some consequences, just as someone should pay for the 2008 bubble, the Iraq war (Bill Kristol ... finally losing one of his platforms) and any number of other examples of the managerial class' screw ups from the last 20 years.