2 ms·
> That doesn't meant that the burden of truth should instantly shift towards them being untrustworthy based on a single article. How many very high-profile art
by crispyambulance 8y ago
> That doesn't meant that the burden of truth should instantly shift towards them being untrustworthy based on a single article.
How many very high-profile articles need to be complete bullshit before it's time to start questioning the integrity of Bloomberg?
The Supermicro nothing-burger was supposedly the culmination of a year of effort by top-shelf journalists. They knew what they were doing, they had NOTHING to show for it and published anyway. I think that's irresponsible at best and more likely had ulterior motivations.
- threeseed 8y agoa) We don't know if the article is bullshit. b) You have no evidence that that they didn't have sources, no evidence that they have ulterior motives and no evidence that they published the article without evidence. c) Like you said if it was a year of effort by top-shelf journalists surely there is more to the story than simply "nothing".
- crispyambulance 8y ago> ...there is more to the story than simply "nothing". Well, where is it? Seriously, where? Bloomberg made the assertion, a serious one that moved markets, and now it's on them to prove it. Or at least someone needs to step forward with something that remotely corroborates the story. It's a hard-to-believe claim on a technical basis alone like something straight out of James Bond story. It was a year in the making and now approaching 5 months later and still nothing?