[perl4ever]

People keep asking that. Seems like every few weeks for however long it's been, I see a comment like yours.

I haven't seen anyone mention what news source meets the standard of never having published an article with insufficient evidence according to one or more people on the internet.

I mean, obviously not the NY Times, for instance, right?

[sofixa]

A good news source would retract their initial article(s) when experts debunked them and nobody could corroborate, not double down with even less evidence.

[perl4ever]

It's notoriously hard to prove a negative.

But what I'd really like to know is who is a "good news source" in contrast to Bloomberg.

If one doubtful article discredits an entire organization, it's pretty astounding to me anyone worth trusting can exist. The Daily Mail?

[9935c101ab17a66]

The combination of: the absolutely terrible article being an obvious hit piece, the potential damage of the claims with almost no real evidence to back them up, and the complete lack of contrition or accountability.

I don’t think it ruined Bloomberg’s reputation entirely (I still love and frequently read Money Stuff), but it did eviscerate any credibility they had in highly technical, investigative technology reporting. And the refusal to admit the failures publicly definitely calls into question their editorial process and organizational culture.

Also, the idea that ‘thing x’ shouldn’t be criticized because ‘thing y’ is also bad is pretty clear “whataboutism” and an unhelpful way to address valid criticism.

[perl4ever]

>pretty clear “whataboutism”

Whataboutism is when someone deflects accusations against themselves by pointing to others. I am not Bloomberg nor do I work for them, and accusing people of being shills is mentioned in the HN guidelines as being discouraged.