Re: all the comments that this article doesn't disclose the Bloomberg conflict of interest. It was published before Bloomberg entered the race. Granted, you could make the argument that Bloomberg was shadow directing the publication to attack other fringe Dem nominees, but Noah Smith has been making this argument on twitter for some time now.
Yes, just like how every Washington Post article critical of Elizabeth Warren is because "Bezo is trying to protect the billionaire class" /s.
I saw a blue checkmark people saying just that in response to WaPo covering Warren's own staff releasing her law work with corporations. This Bloomberg stuff comes up constantly too.
idk how otherwise smart people buy into this stuff. It's a very naive view of how the world works and conspiracy theory tier stuff. Much like gov conspiracies hiding massive world changing information, newsrooms unquestioningly follow the orders of the chairman and the editors and staff all keep it super-secret (despite it being the biggest story of the year if it leaked, among people in the business of leaks), just to help one guy polling at 2% beat the other guy polling at 3%. Bias in newspapers is very different than direct interference.
Reporting costs money. If you can control the budget, then you can control which stories are prioritized and which aren't. If you own the paper, you can control the editorial section. Pretending that these tools can't be or aren't being used to influence the population is naive.
> Pretending that these tools can't be or aren't being used to influence the population is naive.
Fortunately that's not what we're talking about, at least not so broadly.
But saying the stories are artificial or plants directly from the Bloomberg campaign - basically saying "ignore anything to do with his competitors from Bloomberg News because it's obviously at the direction of the chairman". That's what I don't buy.
Another example which would be crossing a line is any reporters getting silenced or stories getting squashed.
Even worse is the idea there's a broader conspiracy to protect the 1% class that Bezos et al and all of the big newspaper teams are engaged in is an even bigger yawn.
If we're just talking about hiring people with a certain bias and budgeting then eh.. I really don't see the problem with that, which as you mentioned every paper or editor/management would be guilty of it. That's why we have more than one newspaper.
I'd rather judge each story on their individual merits, with the obvious consideration of the source being a factor.
Do we think Bloomberg’s decision to enter the race coincided with the exact moment he publicized his intent to enter the race? The decisions aren’t made on a whim — candidates decide this stuff over a long period of time. Bloomberg knew he would enter the race long before he announced.
