5 ms·

Billionaire presidential candidate Mike Bloomberg is refusing to buckle under pressure and change the rules of engagement for his news outlet's political

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?
  - troydavis 7y ago
    No. I didn't offer a biased position, or any position. I linked to 3 other sources with summaries of where they fall between purely factual reporting and opinion. The 2 opinions - which don't agree with one another - are from experts on journalism and have been widely cited by other sources. Since you're new here, https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html may be worth skimming, particularly "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
    - alamaslah 7y ago
      And yet you have not linked to the mediabiasfact site's profile of the sources you provided...That is an example of bias. Are you going to answer my question? Ps. This is a new account. I've been here 11 years and I have noticed those that cite the guidelines are often trying to hide behind them. Also, your own positions are depending upon assuming bad faith.
      - rjsw 7y ago
        The Daily Mail is not a newspaper of record.
        deith 7y ago
        If you took a newspaper "of record" like the NYT and judged it for what they published the last 10 years, I wonder if you could consider it a newspaper "of record" anymore
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
- romaaeterna 7y ago
  The URL on Daily Mail that you cite has "factcheck" in the domain name and calls itself "The Most Comprehensive Media Bias Resource". It has no about page and is exactly the sort of URL that I'd expect to get emailed from my impressionable 78-year-old mother.
  - troydavis 7y ago
    Fair point. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia-bans-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia... is probably a better summary of how Daily Mail is perceived. Wikipedia prohibits its use as a source, explaining: "volunteer editors on English Wikipedia have come to a consensus that the Daily Mail is ‘generally unreliable and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist.’" They cited "the Daily Mail’s reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism and flat-out fabrication."
    - adger 7y ago
      Sorry, but this is becoming embarressing for you. You are not disagreeing with the information in the article, merely smearing the organisaton it is published by. Then you provide opinions of organisations that are equally unreliable. You have been abusing your downvoting privilege and flagging comments. Down thread you resorted to lying. Amusingly you accused a commenter of assuming bad faith. Perhaps you should go and read the guidelines you cited?
    - romaaeterna 7y ago
      The Guardian article you link is simply reporting on the Wikipedia vote from a couple of years ago. Wikipedia keeps a unreliable sources list, and a perusal of it will show you that it's not an impressive exercise in fairness. In fact, Wikipedia's fairness standards are somewhat notorious. As a minor funny/sad side point to all this, Peter Hitchens over at the Mail on Sunday -- owned by the Daily Mail, but with a separate editorial team -- has complained frequently about his Wikipedia page being defaced by this very policy. Apparently some enterprising editors thought that it was their duty to remove all Hitchens quotes from the article because his articles had appeared in the Mail on Sunday, and was therefore an "unreliable source" despite being a quote of what the man said. What a shitshow! My own guess, as a sometimes Daily Mail reader from the States, is that the "unreliable" thing is simply a talking point somehow related to UK politics. The Daily Mail has a severe sensationalist bias, but their reporting is often quite good, and they have more than their fair share of scoops.
ian-bateman 7y ago
Interesting that Bloomberg is missing from his own billionaire index list: https://www.bloomberg.com/billionaires/ https://www.bloomberg.com/billionaires/
- KoftaBob 7y ago
  Very odd...
- ksec 7y ago
  https://www.forbes.com/real-time-billionaires/ https://www.forbes.com/real-time-billionaires/ On Forbes he is listed to be worth ~$56B. I think this topic is worth its own HN submission by itself.

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?
- troydavis 7y ago
  No. I didn't offer a biased position, or any position. I linked to 3 other sources with summaries of where they fall between purely factual reporting and opinion. The 2 opinions - which don't agree with one another - are from experts on journalism and have been widely cited by other sources. Since you're new here, https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html may be worth skimming, particularly "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
  - alamaslah 7y ago
    And yet you have not linked to the mediabiasfact site's profile of the sources you provided...That is an example of bias. Are you going to answer my question? Ps. This is a new account. I've been here 11 years and I have noticed those that cite the guidelines are often trying to hide behind them. Also, your own positions are depending upon assuming bad faith.
    - rjsw 7y ago
      The Daily Mail is not a newspaper of record.
      - deith 7y ago
        If you took a newspaper "of record" like the NYT and judged it for what they published the last 10 years, I wonder if you could consider it a newspaper "of record" anymore
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
romaaeterna 7y ago
The URL on Daily Mail that you cite has "factcheck" in the domain name and calls itself "The Most Comprehensive Media Bias Resource". It has no about page and is exactly the sort of URL that I'd expect to get emailed from my impressionable 78-year-old mother.
- troydavis 7y ago
  Fair point. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia-bans-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia... is probably a better summary of how Daily Mail is perceived. Wikipedia prohibits its use as a source, explaining: "volunteer editors on English Wikipedia have come to a consensus that the Daily Mail is ‘generally unreliable and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist.’" They cited "the Daily Mail’s reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism and flat-out fabrication."
  - adger 7y ago
    Sorry, but this is becoming embarressing for you. You are not disagreeing with the information in the article, merely smearing the organisaton it is published by. Then you provide opinions of organisations that are equally unreliable. You have been abusing your downvoting privilege and flagging comments. Down thread you resorted to lying. Amusingly you accused a commenter of assuming bad faith. Perhaps you should go and read the guidelines you cited?
  - romaaeterna 7y ago
    The Guardian article you link is simply reporting on the Wikipedia vote from a couple of years ago. Wikipedia keeps a unreliable sources list, and a perusal of it will show you that it's not an impressive exercise in fairness. In fact, Wikipedia's fairness standards are somewhat notorious. As a minor funny/sad side point to all this, Peter Hitchens over at the Mail on Sunday -- owned by the Daily Mail, but with a separate editorial team -- has complained frequently about his Wikipedia page being defaced by this very policy. Apparently some enterprising editors thought that it was their duty to remove all Hitchens quotes from the article because his articles had appeared in the Mail on Sunday, and was therefore an "unreliable source" despite being a quote of what the man said. What a shitshow! My own guess, as a sometimes Daily Mail reader from the States, is that the "unreliable" thing is simply a talking point somehow related to UK politics. The Daily Mail has a severe sensationalist bias, but their reporting is often quite good, and they have more than their fair share of scoops.

ian-bateman 7y ago

Interesting that Bloomberg is missing from his own billionaire index list: https://www.bloomberg.com/billionaires/ https://www.bloomberg.com/billionaires/

KoftaBob 7y ago
Very odd...
ksec 7y ago
https://www.forbes.com/real-time-billionaires/ https://www.forbes.com/real-time-billionaires/ On Forbes he is listed to be worth ~$56B. I think this topic is worth its own HN submission by itself.