5 ms·

Why is this being downvoted? It is a interesting contribution and gives valuable insight into the article that has been posted.

jcadam 7y ago
> Why is this being downvoted? So was the other comment by the same user. They're being downvoted because they're critical of a Democratic presidential candidate.
- troydavis 7y ago
  At least in my case, I downvoted it because it cited Daily Mail as a reliable source. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail and https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-mail/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-mail/ have more, but basically, it’s a tabloid. Their assessment of the decision is incomplete, probably because reporting is not how they differentiate. Here’s a few other entities' explanations of Bloomberg’s decision: 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..., 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...
  - leereeves 7y ago
    Did you downvote the wrong comment? It was a different comment by the same author, with the same unique format, that cited the Daily Mail.
    - troydavis 7y ago
      (Update: I'm no longer sure whether this is correct. More on this, for the three other people who care: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21969051 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21969051) No, OP subsequently edited the comment without saying so. This whole reply thread is now useless.
      - wozniacki 7y ago
        I'm sorry to say but you seem to be a petulant person or someone with an axe to grind, here. I haven't seen anyone try to vociferously beat down a fully citation-ed comment with legitimate sources as if it were salvaged from some hearsay somewhere. Some would mistake you for someone who works for the aforementioned billionaire's campaign, the way you seem to want to launder his image, here.
        troydavis 7y ago
        There's no point to continuing this here, but I'd like to restore your faith that there's someone online who doesn't have an axe to grind :-) I don't, nor do I have a strong opinion about the next president (well, other than that I'd like it to not be Trump). If you're up for email, I just added an obfuscated version of my email address to my profile. Say hi and maybe we can get back to a good place.
      - russler23 7y ago
        Eh, nothing changed for me. People probably just got lost in the hierarchy on mobile or something.
  - russler23 7y ago
    Of the four sources posted, only the Mail did the work of getting quotes from Bloomberg reporters. That alone gives it more credibility on this story. The other sources have to editorialize, because they don’t contain original reporting. (NPR features some hot takes from uninvolved parties, which is what reporters do when they can’t get a direct quote.) The Daily Mail has the best reporting on this story.
    - troydavis 7y ago
      > The Daily Mail has the best reporting on this story. I respectfully disagree, but I think anyone who reads the stories can decide for themselves. I agree that it's interesting that Daily Mail texted reporters (or as they wrote, "DailyMail.com's anecdotal sampling of Bloomberg reporters' opinions shows scattershot unease but no willingness to contest the company policy"). I think the 2 opinions I linked to are far more thorough, though. Daily Mail's piece is what they could put out in an hour or two, and the novelty of texting a few reporters doesn't replace thinking about the underlying problems.
      - russler23 7y ago
        Reporting is facts, quickly. Editorial is issues, thoughtfully. Further down in the article was both a quote from a Bloomberg reporter and a statement from Bloomberg Business News. They got the scoop, as they say.
    - starfallg 7y ago
      >only the Mail did the work of getting quotes from Bloomberg reporters. That alone gives it more credibility on this story. Which in no way indicates it has more credibility. Just that it reportedly spent more resources on this story.
ianai 7y ago
HN tends to take a dim view of political discussions in my experience. There have been a number of indicators of a slowing economy for quite some time now. There was at least one run towards bonds in recent months. The Fed has been famously weighing its rate decisions sighting troubling economic outlooks. The yield curve inverted. GDP figures are trending downward. This is all just off the top of my head.
- turk73 7y ago
  The yield curve inverted but then the Fed cut rates and it sprung back. I don't think these low rates are a good idea, mind you, but I'm just saying that the yield curve is no longer inverted.
- merpnderp 7y ago
  Most importantly of all, a stagnating economy is likely the only way anyone in the Democratic primary can beat Trump. And there's not an editor in the country who isn't carefully weighing this when picking what finance stories to run.

jcadam 7y ago

> Why is this being downvoted? So was the other comment by the same user. They're being downvoted because they're critical of a Democratic presidential candidate.

troydavis 7y ago
At least in my case, I downvoted it because it cited Daily Mail as a reliable source. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail and https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-mail/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-mail/ have more, but basically, it’s a tabloid. Their assessment of the decision is incomplete, probably because reporting is not how they differentiate. Here’s a few other entities' explanations of Bloomberg’s decision: 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..., 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...
- leereeves 7y ago
  Did you downvote the wrong comment? It was a different comment by the same author, with the same unique format, that cited the Daily Mail.
  - troydavis 7y ago
    (Update: I'm no longer sure whether this is correct. More on this, for the three other people who care: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21969051 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21969051) No, OP subsequently edited the comment without saying so. This whole reply thread is now useless.
    - wozniacki 7y ago
      I'm sorry to say but you seem to be a petulant person or someone with an axe to grind, here. I haven't seen anyone try to vociferously beat down a fully citation-ed comment with legitimate sources as if it were salvaged from some hearsay somewhere. Some would mistake you for someone who works for the aforementioned billionaire's campaign, the way you seem to want to launder his image, here.
      - troydavis 7y ago
        There's no point to continuing this here, but I'd like to restore your faith that there's someone online who doesn't have an axe to grind :-) I don't, nor do I have a strong opinion about the next president (well, other than that I'd like it to not be Trump). If you're up for email, I just added an obfuscated version of my email address to my profile. Say hi and maybe we can get back to a good place.
    - russler23 7y ago
      Eh, nothing changed for me. People probably just got lost in the hierarchy on mobile or something.
- russler23 7y ago
  Of the four sources posted, only the Mail did the work of getting quotes from Bloomberg reporters. That alone gives it more credibility on this story. The other sources have to editorialize, because they don’t contain original reporting. (NPR features some hot takes from uninvolved parties, which is what reporters do when they can’t get a direct quote.) The Daily Mail has the best reporting on this story.
  - troydavis 7y ago
    > The Daily Mail has the best reporting on this story. I respectfully disagree, but I think anyone who reads the stories can decide for themselves. I agree that it's interesting that Daily Mail texted reporters (or as they wrote, "DailyMail.com's anecdotal sampling of Bloomberg reporters' opinions shows scattershot unease but no willingness to contest the company policy"). I think the 2 opinions I linked to are far more thorough, though. Daily Mail's piece is what they could put out in an hour or two, and the novelty of texting a few reporters doesn't replace thinking about the underlying problems.
    - russler23 7y ago
      Reporting is facts, quickly. Editorial is issues, thoughtfully. Further down in the article was both a quote from a Bloomberg reporter and a statement from Bloomberg Business News. They got the scoop, as they say.
  - starfallg 7y ago
    >only the Mail did the work of getting quotes from Bloomberg reporters. That alone gives it more credibility on this story. Which in no way indicates it has more credibility. Just that it reportedly spent more resources on this story.

ianai 7y ago

HN tends to take a dim view of political discussions in my experience. There have been a number of indicators of a slowing economy for quite some time now. There was at least one run towards bonds in recent months. The Fed has been famously weighing its rate decisions sighting troubling economic outlooks. The yield curve inverted. GDP figures are trending downward. This is all just off the top of my head.

turk73 7y ago
The yield curve inverted but then the Fed cut rates and it sprung back. I don't think these low rates are a good idea, mind you, but I'm just saying that the yield curve is no longer inverted.
merpnderp 7y ago
Most importantly of all, a stagnating economy is likely the only way anyone in the Democratic primary can beat Trump. And there's not an editor in the country who isn't carefully weighing this when picking what finance stories to run.