295: Outlets That Suck

Article Analysis

The Bloomberg article's claims have sparked significant debate, with John Siracusa and Marco Arment scrutinizing its credibility. John suggests that the article's sources may have nefarious motives, potentially linked to trade wars or stock manipulation 1. Marco adds that confirmation bias might have led Bloomberg to publish unverified information, highlighting a lack of due diligence 2.

The real crazy part here is these are very, very serious allegations against very big companies and massive world governments, and a major publication appears not to have done enough diligence on vetting this before making it a very high profile story.

--- Marco Arment

Both agree that the article's allegations are unlikely to be true, given the strong denials from tech companies and intelligence agencies.

   

Company Reactions

Tech companies have responded to the Bloomberg article with firm denials, emphasizing the severity of the accusations. John Siracusa notes that these companies are not using "weasel words" but are instead issuing categorical denials, which would have serious legal implications if proven false 3. Marco points out that the breadth of the claims makes it improbable for Bloomberg to be entirely correct, as it would require a massive conspiracy among tech companies and government agencies 4.

They can't be like 100% correct because the claims are so broad that it would be very easy to find evidence of them from all the players involved who are highly motivated to find evidence of them.

--- John Siracusa

The consensus is that Bloomberg's story is flawed, with companies having thoroughly checked their systems for any truth to the claims.

   

Potential Motives

The motivations behind the Bloomberg article remain unclear, with Casey Liss expressing uncertainty about the intentions of those involved 5. John and Marco speculate that the article could be a result of either nefarious motives or a significant misunderstanding. They discuss the possibility of sources feeding Bloomberg false information, either intentionally or due to a misinterpretation of technical details.

Someone has to have bad motives, because if it all isn't true, someone is taking untrue information and either just making it up themselves and printing it, which is unlikely, I think, or being this being a source, sources coming to Bloomberg and saying, here's this information, which is not true, but they're intentionally feeding false information.

--- John Siracusa

The discussion highlights the complexity of media accountability and the potential consequences of publishing unverified claims.