The risk—that reporters will make things up for short-term gains—can be addressed through a tighter-than-usual editorial process.
In the end, Bloomberg makes its money selling terminals. The organisation, as a whole, is strongly incentivised to police against crap. Perhaps too much so. This policy may serve to counterbalance that inbuilt conservatism.
The grandparent comment's argument about how Bloomberg is incentivised not to print crap by making it's money through terminals sounds almost convincing, I have to admit, but I see someone thinking "why not have the pie and eat it too".
Are they though? Where's the metric that measures credibility, or is that something that's left to human discretion? People will optimize for the metrics they're measured against, and it sounds like in this case they've chosen a metric that conflicts with the aims of a news organization.
I can't find it now, but someone made a site to score opinion piece writers and see how many were right. Few were, but they still had jobs. You give people too much credit.
How does this promote fair and factually accurate coverage over the politicized FUD bullshit we are constantly being fed by the media nowadays?