[lmm]

> Without journalists to expose the bad things in the first place the investors can do no such thing. There is no mechanism in place to discover these facts and there is no effort to build one independent of journalism.

Isn't that backwards? Investors are a major funder of journalism in the broad sense, and one of the few robust revenue sources left for it.

[akira2501]

> Investors are a major funder of journalism in the broad sense

I see it as an advertising driven industry. I'm not sure how investors could be funding it directly.

> and one of the few robust revenue sources left for it.

That there are publications meant for investors does not mean investors can be seen as the revenue source. The advertisers looking to get in front of investors are the source.

If someone was investing in news for it's own sake then why is the quality of the information presented so poor? You'd almost have an easier time making the case they invest to _intentionally_ obscure the process of reporting facts.

[lmm]

> If someone was investing in news for it's own sake then why is the quality of the information presented so poor?

Financial-oriented news tends to be noticeably better than other kinds. Often the best widely-published journalism in the UK will be in the Economist or the FT, for example, and some more specialised publications allegedly have even higher standards.

[TRiG_Ireland]

Unlike science news, financial news does not talk down to its audience.

[lazide]

The article is from Bloomberg, which provided high quality news feeds to investors and other market participants for high prices - $1000+.

This is part of their public articles.