3 ms·
The question is, who is going to pay for critical business reporting? The readers - wannabe CEOs - won't, and the businesses in question won't buy advertising e
by rini17 4y ago
The question is, who is going to pay for critical business reporting? The readers - wannabe CEOs - won't, and the businesses in question won't buy advertising either.
- lupire 4y agoWSJ and FT readers will, because good information is profitable.
- eduction 4y agoThe WSJ wrote one of the listed puff pieces. In fact, it was written by their global tech editor (a Q&A without much pushback on the optimistic claims SBF was making). Perhaps the most egregious examples was from NYT, which also charges for its content and is highly profitable.
- gruez 4y agoIronically the initial story was broken by coindesk, not WSJ, FT, or Bloomberg.
- cuteboy19 4y agoCoindesk owned by DCG which also owns Genesis. Adversarial reporting more like
- amusedcyclist 4y agoWSJ is an absolute rag. FT is very good and worth the money
- throwaway5874 4y agoNever read anything paper which publishes opinion pieces. They are taken as normal news by some people and quoted by some as real news.
- 323 4y agoIf you are into profitable information you buy a Bloomberg Terminal and also subscribe to Reuters news. Finance types don't read WSJ/FT/Economist, this is the "popular" financial press.
- kevin_thibedeau 4y agoBloomberg will happily spread lies when it suits them. They haven't retracted the fake Supermicro story yet.
- kaashif 4y agoWhat was the deal with that, anyway? Like what actually happened there? The whole thing seems bizarre.
- kevin_thibedeau 4y agoBasically a hypothetical scenario was pitched to a clueless reporter who embroidered it into a phony story.