7 ms·

Now that Michael Bloomberg is running for president, I can't help but question if there is an ulterior motive behind each article at Bloomberg.com

rjtavares 7y ago
Honestly, I assume all media outlets have ulterior motives behind each article (ranging from the simple "catering to their specific audience with facts supporting their view" to more nefarious "willfully manipulating the people with falsehoods").
- Dirlewanger 7y ago
  A good start would be to ban wholesale both Bloomberg and Washington Post articles from HN. Nothing from those publications should be trusted.
  - rjtavares 7y ago
    I can think of better places to start, but that's not the point, is it? The point is that you should be aware of individual biases, and should diversify your media consumption.
    - adger 7y ago
      Apperantly not. According to this thread and hacker news in general you shouldn't diversify your media consumption. Unless what is meant by that is different sources with broadly the same agenda. Personally, I find this boring. Perhaps you agree.
  - larrydag 7y ago
    I believe this is the Fed Philadelphia source https://www.philadelphiafed.org/-/media/research-and-data/regional-economy/indexes/leading/2019/leadingindexes1119.pdf?la=en https://www.philadelphiafed.org/-/media/research-and-data/re...
  - smileysteve 7y ago
    > and Washington Post Is Jeff Bezos running for Political office too? You just moved the line from running for Presidential party nomination, skipped over mayor of major city, and jumped right to billionaires. Add on; If all of a sudden you can't be wealthy and own (part of?) a media company, it really hurts the quality of journalism; you'd be left with small town or independent blogs; more susceptible to fake news -- and, more concerning, fear of publishing.
    - pjc50 7y ago
      On the contrary, the media consolidation that has left papers in the hands of a few individuals has been tremendously bad for journalism. The only safe types are either diverse private ownership (more than two owners) or blind trusts. Yes, this rules out a lot of existing news outlets. Virtually all the UK papers are now narrowly owned by individual billionaires whose agendas are very visible in the paper.
      - elliekelly 7y ago
        Blind trusts are a political fiction.
    - merpnderp 7y ago
      Why would we treat Bezos any differently? At his level of rare air, making/breaking regulations is just as important to profit as playing in the market. He has a whole lot more on the line politically than any politician.
  - whatshisface 7y ago
    Even in the most extreme possible case where the WaPo is an outlet for Jeff Bezos' personal opinions, is it really the case that Jeff Bezos couldn't have anything interesting to tell us? One billionaire-owned newspaper isn't that bad on its own, because the other newspapers can still report on the owner of the one. What's really scary is when the billionaire owners go golfing together, which would be a failure of the system that banning a couple publications couldn't help us with.
    - merpnderp 7y ago
      Hasn't this been the case for some time? The number of people who actually matter in the news industry is only a few thousand, and their social graph looks like they're all married to each other's cousins (which is only half a joke).
      - ksec 7y ago
        Could you expand on that for those who dont follow the news industry closely.
- TazeTSchnitzel 7y ago
  Outlets also don't need ulterior motives to produce biased output. If most of your staff hold a conservative outlook, they'll naturally be more skeptical of non-conservative viewpoints in their reporting etc.
  - Fjolsvith 7y ago
    Healthy skepticism is a feature of conservatism.
    - halbritt 7y ago
      That explains Fox news so clearly.
      - Fjolsvith 7y ago
        Then how does the converse explain the other media outlets?
        halbritt 7y ago
        Logically, that doesn't follow. Here, let me explain the joke: You claim that conservatives have healthy skepticism and yet my observation is that the conservative television news outlet continuously streams nonsense and yet seems to be doing quite well. These circumstances are a retort to your assertion. Conversely, what? Nobody asserted that liberals possessed a healthy skepticism or that liberal news outlets don't also continuously stream nonsense. If you'd like me to make some assertions, I'd happily do so, but if you're looking for a partisan viewpoint to attempt to deconstruct, you'll not find one here.
- Symmetry 7y ago
  Sure, but mostly I assume that the alterior motives are things like "Make the reader excited to read more here (and make us more money)" or "Don't make the reader feel confused (and possibly go away and stop making us money)." It's unusual that you have situations where a news purveyor has forces acting stronger than the idealism of its employees or the necessities of the markets.
  - runnerup 7y ago
    s/alterior/ulterior
  - merpnderp 7y ago
    You say this, but we see partisanship and ideology placed before profits all the time, almost every time. How many major newspapers are worth basically zero; how many broadcast news have seen their viewership fall into the toilet; how many internet newsies have lost their jobs - all because they do nothing but grind axes all day and do their best to covertly manipulate their audiences?
    - Symmetry 7y ago
      Mostly I see broadcast news programs trying to survive by flattering the ideological preconceptions of their target audience while viewership falls for other reasons. There's a greater diversity of entertainment available which sucked for cable news. And Craigslist in particular decimated the income of most newspapers. Also changes in the media landscape open up the possibility of competition in a way that didn't exist when ABC, NBC, and CBS had their comfy oligarchy. And these days, as far as I can tell, the salaries of the reporters I respect seem to be payed for by the ad impressions viral clickbate put out by the same journalistic outfits except for the weekly I'm paying $225 a year for.
wozniacki 7y ago
Billionaire presidential candidate Mike Bloomberg is refusing to buckle under pressure and change the rules of engagement for his news outlet's political reporters—who are forbidden from investigating him or any other Democratic White House hopeful. Bloomberg News journalists will 'just have to learn to live with some things,' he told CBS News in an interview that aired Friday morning. 'They get a paycheck,' the former New York City mayor lectured, 'but with your paycheck comes some restrictions and responsibilities.'[1] [1] 'With your paycheck comes some restrictions': Mike Bloomberg doubles down on censoring his journalists from investigating non-Trump candidates https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7765273/Mike-Bloomberg-tells-doubles-censoring-journalists-investigating-2020-Democrats.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7765273/Mike-Bloomb...
- russler23 7y ago
  Well, that can’t possibly have any chilling effects.
- troydavis 7y ago
  Here are other, much more nuanced analyses of this decision: * Factual summary: https://www.npr.org/2019/11/25/782732936/bloomberg-news-says-it-wont-cover-owners-presidential-campaign-or-his-rivals https://www.npr.org/2019/11/25/782732936/bloomberg-news-says... * Opinionated: https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/473542-bloomberg-reporting-policy-not-pretty-or-perfect-but-right https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/473542-bloomberg-report..., https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/michael_bloomberg_news_president.php https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/michael_bloomberg_news_p... (Daily Mail is widely considered a poor source, and while they do report some actual news, their analysis of anything is not worth citing. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-mail/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-mail/)
  - alamaslah 7y ago
    Do you offer biased positions with the intent of provoking a "flamewar" and thus getting articles and dicussions that you do not like flagged?
habanany 7y ago
Always had !!
turk73 7y ago
Chomsky eloquently demonstrated that there is always an agenda and always has been. I do find it interesting that the more conservative states are the ones listed. It reads like propaganda. "See? All the blue states are doing great!" Yeah, right. One is robbing Peter to pay Paul and the more honest ones are letting market forces work which requires the occasional downturn. Everybody is going to take their medicine, the economy can't simply expand forever. The whole "tax and spend" approach that the more liberal states operate on is pushing people into poverty. The strain on the Middle Class is enormous and they are doubling down again! Worse, due to all the money printing, we are seeing a bout of price inflation for food and other necessities. Meanwhile, 44% of Americans work for about $12/hr. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/ceos-of-sp-500-companies-earn-more-in-two-days-than-the-average-worker-will-for-the-whole-year-2020-01-06?mod=home-page https://www.marketwatch.com/story/ceos-of-sp-500-companies-e... Love how Tasers are being used so heavily by government that Axon's CEO made $246M. Something is very, very wrong in this country!
Angostura 7y ago
It's clearly an issue that the news service is grappling with, though you can argue how successfully. Bloomberg has a long-stamding policy of not covering Bloomberg. But how do you make that work when he is a candidate? Their solution: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/nov/25/michael-bloomberg-news-service-investigate-backlash https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/nov/25/michael-bloomb...
daxorid 7y ago
Yes, eleven years into a ZIRP-induced asset bubble, the ISM collapsing, China deal still unsigned, CAPE ratio at the second highest level ever, increasing tensions with Iran, six months after the yield curve inversion, a repo market on "not QE" life support, a stagnant housing market, massively underfunded pensions in most states, exploding CRE, corporate junk, student, auto, and revolving debt, and a near-term demographic consumption cliff: Anyone reporting data that may perchance suggest that perhaps, maybe, the party might be wrapping up is only doing it for political reasons.
Andrex 7y ago
Bloomberg.com's reputation has yet to recover from The Big Hack non-retraction. Until they speak publicly about it, I consider them the same tier as toilet paper.

rjtavares 7y ago

Honestly, I assume all media outlets have ulterior motives behind each article (ranging from the simple "catering to their specific audience with facts supporting their view" to more nefarious "willfully manipulating the people with falsehoods").

Dirlewanger 7y ago
A good start would be to ban wholesale both Bloomberg and Washington Post articles from HN. Nothing from those publications should be trusted.
- rjtavares 7y ago
  I can think of better places to start, but that's not the point, is it? The point is that you should be aware of individual biases, and should diversify your media consumption.
  - adger 7y ago
    Apperantly not. According to this thread and hacker news in general you shouldn't diversify your media consumption. Unless what is meant by that is different sources with broadly the same agenda. Personally, I find this boring. Perhaps you agree.
- larrydag 7y ago
  I believe this is the Fed Philadelphia source https://www.philadelphiafed.org/-/media/research-and-data/regional-economy/indexes/leading/2019/leadingindexes1119.pdf?la=en https://www.philadelphiafed.org/-/media/research-and-data/re...
- smileysteve 7y ago
  > and Washington Post Is Jeff Bezos running for Political office too? You just moved the line from running for Presidential party nomination, skipped over mayor of major city, and jumped right to billionaires. Add on; If all of a sudden you can't be wealthy and own (part of?) a media company, it really hurts the quality of journalism; you'd be left with small town or independent blogs; more susceptible to fake news -- and, more concerning, fear of publishing.
  - pjc50 7y ago
    On the contrary, the media consolidation that has left papers in the hands of a few individuals has been tremendously bad for journalism. The only safe types are either diverse private ownership (more than two owners) or blind trusts. Yes, this rules out a lot of existing news outlets. Virtually all the UK papers are now narrowly owned by individual billionaires whose agendas are very visible in the paper.
    - elliekelly 7y ago
      Blind trusts are a political fiction.
  - merpnderp 7y ago
    Why would we treat Bezos any differently? At his level of rare air, making/breaking regulations is just as important to profit as playing in the market. He has a whole lot more on the line politically than any politician.
- whatshisface 7y ago
  Even in the most extreme possible case where the WaPo is an outlet for Jeff Bezos' personal opinions, is it really the case that Jeff Bezos couldn't have anything interesting to tell us? One billionaire-owned newspaper isn't that bad on its own, because the other newspapers can still report on the owner of the one. What's really scary is when the billionaire owners go golfing together, which would be a failure of the system that banning a couple publications couldn't help us with.
  - merpnderp 7y ago
    Hasn't this been the case for some time? The number of people who actually matter in the news industry is only a few thousand, and their social graph looks like they're all married to each other's cousins (which is only half a joke).
    - ksec 7y ago
      Could you expand on that for those who dont follow the news industry closely.
TazeTSchnitzel 7y ago
Outlets also don't need ulterior motives to produce biased output. If most of your staff hold a conservative outlook, they'll naturally be more skeptical of non-conservative viewpoints in their reporting etc.
- Fjolsvith 7y ago
  Healthy skepticism is a feature of conservatism.
  - halbritt 7y ago
    That explains Fox news so clearly.
    - Fjolsvith 7y ago
      Then how does the converse explain the other media outlets?
      - halbritt 7y ago
        Logically, that doesn't follow. Here, let me explain the joke: You claim that conservatives have healthy skepticism and yet my observation is that the conservative television news outlet continuously streams nonsense and yet seems to be doing quite well. These circumstances are a retort to your assertion. Conversely, what? Nobody asserted that liberals possessed a healthy skepticism or that liberal news outlets don't also continuously stream nonsense. If you'd like me to make some assertions, I'd happily do so, but if you're looking for a partisan viewpoint to attempt to deconstruct, you'll not find one here.
Symmetry 7y ago
Sure, but mostly I assume that the alterior motives are things like "Make the reader excited to read more here (and make us more money)" or "Don't make the reader feel confused (and possibly go away and stop making us money)." It's unusual that you have situations where a news purveyor has forces acting stronger than the idealism of its employees or the necessities of the markets.
- runnerup 7y ago
  s/alterior/ulterior
- merpnderp 7y ago
  You say this, but we see partisanship and ideology placed before profits all the time, almost every time. How many major newspapers are worth basically zero; how many broadcast news have seen their viewership fall into the toilet; how many internet newsies have lost their jobs - all because they do nothing but grind axes all day and do their best to covertly manipulate their audiences?
  - Symmetry 7y ago
    Mostly I see broadcast news programs trying to survive by flattering the ideological preconceptions of their target audience while viewership falls for other reasons. There's a greater diversity of entertainment available which sucked for cable news. And Craigslist in particular decimated the income of most newspapers. Also changes in the media landscape open up the possibility of competition in a way that didn't exist when ABC, NBC, and CBS had their comfy oligarchy. And these days, as far as I can tell, the salaries of the reporters I respect seem to be payed for by the ad impressions viral clickbate put out by the same journalistic outfits except for the weekly I'm paying $225 a year for.

wozniacki 7y ago

Billionaire presidential candidate Mike Bloomberg is refusing to buckle under pressure and change the rules of engagement for his news outlet's political reporters—who are forbidden from investigating him or any other Democratic White House hopeful. Bloomberg News journalists will 'just have to learn to live with some things,' he told CBS News in an interview that aired Friday morning. 'They get a paycheck,' the former New York City mayor lectured, 'but with your paycheck comes some restrictions and responsibilities.'[1] [1] 'With your paycheck comes some restrictions': Mike Bloomberg doubles down on censoring his journalists from investigating non-Trump candidates https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7765273/Mike-Bloomberg-tells-doubles-censoring-journalists-investigating-2020-Democrats.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7765273/Mike-Bloomb...

russler23 7y ago
Well, that can’t possibly have any chilling effects.
troydavis 7y ago
Here are other, much more nuanced analyses of this decision: * Factual summary: https://www.npr.org/2019/11/25/782732936/bloomberg-news-says-it-wont-cover-owners-presidential-campaign-or-his-rivals https://www.npr.org/2019/11/25/782732936/bloomberg-news-says... * Opinionated: https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/473542-bloomberg-reporting-policy-not-pretty-or-perfect-but-right https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/473542-bloomberg-report..., https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/michael_bloomberg_news_president.php https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/michael_bloomberg_news_p... (Daily Mail is widely considered a poor source, and while they do report some actual news, their analysis of anything is not worth citing. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-mail/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-mail/)
- alamaslah 7y ago
  Do you offer biased positions with the intent of provoking a "flamewar" and thus getting articles and dicussions that you do not like flagged?

habanany 7y ago

Always had !!

turk73 7y ago

Chomsky eloquently demonstrated that there is always an agenda and always has been. I do find it interesting that the more conservative states are the ones listed. It reads like propaganda. "See? All the blue states are doing great!" Yeah, right. One is robbing Peter to pay Paul and the more honest ones are letting market forces work which requires the occasional downturn. Everybody is going to take their medicine, the economy can't simply expand forever. The whole "tax and spend" approach that the more liberal states operate on is pushing people into poverty. The strain on the Middle Class is enormous and they are doubling down again! Worse, due to all the money printing, we are seeing a bout of price inflation for food and other necessities. Meanwhile, 44% of Americans work for about $12/hr. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/ceos-of-sp-500-companies-earn-more-in-two-days-than-the-average-worker-will-for-the-whole-year-2020-01-06?mod=home-page https://www.marketwatch.com/story/ceos-of-sp-500-companies-e... Love how Tasers are being used so heavily by government that Axon's CEO made $246M. Something is very, very wrong in this country!

Angostura 7y ago

It's clearly an issue that the news service is grappling with, though you can argue how successfully. Bloomberg has a long-stamding policy of not covering Bloomberg. But how do you make that work when he is a candidate? Their solution: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/nov/25/michael-bloomberg-news-service-investigate-backlash https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/nov/25/michael-bloomb...

daxorid 7y ago

Yes, eleven years into a ZIRP-induced asset bubble, the ISM collapsing, China deal still unsigned, CAPE ratio at the second highest level ever, increasing tensions with Iran, six months after the yield curve inversion, a repo market on "not QE" life support, a stagnant housing market, massively underfunded pensions in most states, exploding CRE, corporate junk, student, auto, and revolving debt, and a near-term demographic consumption cliff: Anyone reporting data that may perchance suggest that perhaps, maybe, the party might be wrapping up is only doing it for political reasons.

Andrex 7y ago

Bloomberg.com's reputation has yet to recover from The Big Hack non-retraction. Until they speak publicly about it, I consider them the same tier as toilet paper.