3 ms·
If you consider the Bloomberg article on SuperMicro, they repeatedly claim expert/insider sources corroborate their version of the story, and have issued no ret
by formalsystems 6y ago
If you consider the Bloomberg article on SuperMicro, they repeatedly claim expert/insider sources corroborate their version of the story, and have issued no retraction after their story was thoroughly debunked. While this certainly reflects poorly on Bloomberg, it reflects most on the journalistic standards of the article's authors. I don't think we will ever have a world where authoritative sources exist, since there can always be elements within the source of authority willing to bend the truth for more clicks.
- salawat 6y agoThis makes sense if you remember that one of Bloomberg's reason to exist is to report news that moves markets. Truth or lies, it gets said all the same. Funny how prescient The Protomen seem to be.
- jdsully 6y agoSeems an uncharitable interpretation. I would regard that more as a guide to the type of news they want their reporters to focus on - and what their audience wants to read. As far as corporate goals go its actually pretty specific and measurable.
- jjeaff 6y agoI think there is still something to that story. The authors involved are pretty good journalists from what I hear. I think that the coincidence of the US government's efforts to sanction chinese companies is a little suspect.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoI'm also suspicious of the coincidence, but an organized disinformation attempt explains it just as well as a real event.
- jjeaff 6y agoYes, that is what I was alluding to. Which in that case, takes some of the onus off of the reporters and the paper, I think.