[CogitoCogito]

I've heard this so many times and it just seems so ludicrous. How does one even prove that a specific article "affected the market". What degree need an article "affect the market" in order to qualify? How does one measure this? To whom does a reporter submit a "reimbursement for market effect" form?

I mean I guess if I saw some proof of these claims I might change my mind, but at the moment it seems totally naive.

edit: Here's an article that discusses it (for the moment I'll just assume their anonymous sources are correct which is a bit ridiculous to assume coming from a rival news source):

https://www.businessinsider.com/bloomberg-reporters-compensa...

> There's nothing wrong with a news story moving the market: It means a story is important.

I think this is really the key. Bloomberg's news is financial in nature. Basically any big story will have a market effect. So basically in this instance "moving the market" might just be equivalent to "being a big story". So if it's bad to give bonuses based upon market-moving stories, it's bad to give bonuses on big stories.

Regardless the whole thing side-steps the important question anyway. Are the articles they post actually true? That's the only thing people should concern themselves with.

[acct1771]

They don't care about the reason it moves the market.

They just know people will feel compelled to read their publications if they're consistently affecting the market.