Hacker News Reader

Comment by wozniacki | Hacker News Reader

   Billionaire presidential candidate Mike Bloomberg is
   refusing to buckle under pressure and change the 
   rules of engagement for his news outlet's political
   reporters—who are forbidden from investigating him
   or any other Democratic White House hopeful.

   Bloomberg News journalists will 'just have to learn
   to live with some things,' he told CBS News in an 
   interview that aired Friday morning.

   'They get a paycheck,' the former New York City mayor 
   lectured, 'but with your paycheck comes some restrictions
   and responsibilities.'[1]

[1]

'With your paycheck comes some restrictions': Mike Bloomberg doubles down on censoring his journalists from investigating non-Trump candidates

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7765273/Mike-Bloomb...

View on HN

Here are other, much more nuanced analyses of this decision:

* Factual summary: https://www.npr.org/2019/11/25/782732936/bloomberg-news-says...

* Opinionated: https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/473542-bloomberg-report..., https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/michael_bloomberg_news_p...

(Daily Mail is widely considered a poor source, and while they do report some actual news, their analysis of anything is not worth citing. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-mail/)

The URL on Daily Mail that you cite has "factcheck" in the domain name and calls itself "The Most Comprehensive Media Bias Resource". It has no about page and is exactly the sort of URL that I'd expect to get emailed from my impressionable 78-year-old mother.

Fair point. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia... is probably a better summary of how Daily Mail is perceived.

Wikipedia prohibits its use as a source, explaining: "volunteer editors on English Wikipedia have come to a consensus that the Daily Mail is ‘generally unreliable and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist.’"

They cited "the Daily Mail’s reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism and flat-out fabrication."

The Guardian article you link is simply reporting on the Wikipedia vote from a couple of years ago. Wikipedia keeps a unreliable sources list, and a perusal of it will show you that it's not an impressive exercise in fairness. In fact, Wikipedia's fairness standards are somewhat notorious.

As a minor funny/sad side point to all this, Peter Hitchens over at the Mail on Sunday -- owned by the Daily Mail, but with a separate editorial team -- has complained frequently about his Wikipedia page being defaced by this very policy. Apparently some enterprising editors thought that it was their duty to remove all Hitchens quotes from the article because his articles had appeared in the Mail on Sunday, and was therefore an "unreliable source" despite being a quote of what the man said. What a shitshow!

My own guess, as a sometimes Daily Mail reader from the States, is that the "unreliable" thing is simply a talking point somehow related to UK politics. The Daily Mail has a severe sensationalist bias, but their reporting is often quite good, and they have more than their fair share of scoops.

Interesting that Bloomberg is missing from his own billionaire index list: https://www.bloomberg.com/billionaires/

Very odd...

https://www.forbes.com/real-time-billionaires/

On Forbes he is listed to be worth ~$56B.

I think this topic is worth its own HN submission by itself.

Well, that can’t possibly have any chilling effects.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com