[russler23]

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]

> 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]

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]

>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.