One of the knocks on Bloomberg News is that the place is a bit, well, cultish.
This quote doesn’t help matters.
We noticed the other day top dog Matt Winkler getting a little weird channeling Mayor Mike’s views for the new Bloomberg View editorials.
Jeff Bercovici of Forbes talked to Winkler recently about Bloomberg View and got this stuff (emphasis mine):
To the extent that Bloomberg View has — let’s say “preferences” rather than “biases,” shall we? — they will be those of the company’s founder, New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg. In January of this year, Winkler, mindful that the company was soon to embark on a major expansion of its opinion operation, attempted to codify some of those preferences in the latest edition of “The Bloomberg Way,” the best-practices guidebook issued to every employee. “As moral force makes journalism a calling for those who embrace it,” reads the new edition, “the Bloomberg Way necessitates a respect for life, peace and harmony, education, family stability, social responsibility, transparency, free trade and free markets.”
“It seemed to me, in the course of working on it, that all of us ought to be able to answer the question ‘Why am I here?’ and ‘Why am I here now?’ Winkler says of his decision to add the passage about values. “Those are all things I would consider consistent with the values of our founder.”
Is this a news organization or a religion?
— Reuters looks at how supposedly independent experts called to testify before Congress often don’t reveal their conflicts of interest.
A Reuters review of 96 testimonies given by 82 academics to the Senate Banking Committee and the House Financial Services Committee between late 2008 and early 2010 — as lawmakers debated the biggest overhaul of financial regulation since the 1930s — found no clear standard for disclosure.
In fact, roughly a third did not reveal their financial affiliations in their testimonies, based on a comparison of the text of their testimonies available on the Congressional committees’ websites with their resumes available online.
The House Financial Services Committee’s rules require disclosure only if witnesses have received federal grants on the subject about which they are testifying.
Also interesting: How often academics from the Koch-funded Mercatus Center at George Mason get called to testify to Congress.
The House Financial Services Committee and Senate Banking Committee heard from academic economists linked to the Mercatus Center about a dozen times during the financial regulatory reform debate. That is roughly the same number of testimonies by academics hailing from both Harvard’s business and law schools.
According to a 2009 ranking of 31 economics programs at U.S. universities
by U.S. News and World Report, Harvard University ranked No. 1. George Mason didn’t place.
— Finally, a few months ago, I called for the press to push back hard against Apple, which was yanking political cartoonists’ apps for containing “content that ridicules public figures.” Apple backed down, but the episode, and plenty of others since, illustrated how much control Apple has chosen to exert over publishers in its App Stores.
Here’s what I wrote in April:
Look, let’s face it. The iPad is the most exciting opportunity for the media in many years. But if the press is ceding gatekeeper status, even if it’s only nominally, over its speech, then it is making a dangerous mistake. Unless Apple explicitly gives the press complete control over its ability to publish what it sees fit, the news media needs to yank its apps in protest.
Now, Apple has yanked a third-party Wikileaks app from its store, saying “Apps must comply with all local laws and may not put an individual or group in harm’s way.”
But whatever you think about whether Wikileaks is a responsible member of the press, it is most definitely the press, and Apple has just blocked it from publishing on its devices.
I’ll reiterate what I said earlier this year:
The press has got to step back and think about the broad implications of this. It would never let the government have such power over its right to publish. It shouldn’t let any corporation have it, either.
"Most definitely" the press? I fail to see how Wikileaks is in any sense "the press." It is a site that dumps stolen documents for public consumption, in most cases without even reading them or knowing their contents, and without taking any responsibility for providing context or information about the contents.
That's like saying a hacker site that steals data from Bank of America and posts people's account numbers online is "the press." Or the criminals who stole the emails from University of East Anglia and posted them are "the press." Same thing.
I guess I have a better opinion of, and expectations for, "the press" than you do, Ryan.
#1 Posted by James, CJR on Tue 21 Dec 2010 at 08:58 PM
Not going to debate you over the nature of wikileaks, which I think fits among the more gonzo element of the press we've seen over the years, but wikileaks is not the same as "the criminals who stole the emails from University of East Anglia and posted them". Wikileaks did not steal the material in question and the websites who received the East Anglia information have enough 'plausible deniability' to claim they have no connection, nor know the identity of the East Anglia break in felons.
You can claim wikileaks is the equivalent of "Opinion Times"
http://www.opiniontimes.com/
Who made the East Anglia Email website.
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/
But in that case no one is seeking the shutdown of that site, no one has suspended its payment accounts, no one has sought the proprietor for criminal charges (and made multiple death threats on mass media), and no one would deny its app. That would be censorship.
The same applies to wikileaks, and yes it is censorship unlike anything I've seen outside a banana republic.
#2 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 21 Dec 2010 at 09:13 PM
Minor quibble: the title mentions Wikipedia, but the article mentions Wikileaks.
#3 Posted by jredmond, CJR on Tue 21 Dec 2010 at 11:50 PM
You "argue" like a rightwinger, Thimbles. Just throw up a list of irrelevant gripes and see what will derail the thread.
I took issue with what @Ryan asserted here:
... Wikileaks ... is most definitely the press, and Apple has just blocked it from publishing on its devices.
Apple, of course, has the right to block anything they wish on their devices and whether anyone likes it or agrees with the decision is irrelevant.
The press ... would never let the government have such power over its right to publish. It shouldn’t let any corporation have it, either.
You have an odd and inconsistent view of what constitutes "the press," @Ryan.
It's one thing to bring suit against the government on First Amendment grounds, but that "right to publish" doesn't extend to private companies.
Apple certainly has the right to decide that they won't be instrumental in distributing stolen classified documents. Apple isn't like the New York Times, who does have the responsibility and the obligation to carry this story. Apple's mission isn't the same as the NYT mission. By asserting that Apple is obligated to publish controversial material, you imply that Apple is "the press" just as the NYT is. That's obviously not the case.
I'd really like to hear your reasonable argument why they *should* be forced to carry it. But you'd have to start with a better definition of "the press."
#4 Posted by James, CJR on Wed 22 Dec 2010 at 06:32 AM
It would be nice if you would correct the error in your headline: Wikipedia has NO connection with Wikileaks, but careless linking of the two like this does cause damage to Wikipedia, particularly when it's running its annual fundraising drive.
#5 Posted by Arwel, CJR on Wed 22 Dec 2010 at 08:24 AM
jredmond, Arwel, thanks for the headsup on putting WikiPEDIA in the headline instead of WikiLEAKS. That was boneheaded of me.
James, everybody knows freedom of the press doesn't apply to private companies. The point is, as I said, the press shouldn't let any corporation have such power over its right to publish.
The press, while iPad or whatever is still in its infancy, has leverage over Apple. That's slipping away with each sale and if the press doesn't negotiate a right-to-publish now (as I wrote http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/its_time_for_the_press_to_push.php
>eight months ago), they'll never get it.
And your analogy with BofA and hackers is way, way off. These guys aren't just releasing any database or document in the world exposing private people's affairs. They're targeting the powerful to reveal what they do. And they're not stealing anything--anymore than the traditional press steals any document or data leaked to it against government or corporate wishes. The Pentagon Papers were "stolen," too, you know.
#6 Posted by Ryan Chittum, CJR on Wed 22 Dec 2010 at 09:57 AM
@Ryan,
I think that you and the liberals are way, way off.
Consider: if thieves or hackers had stolen, say, Sony's entire music library and Wikileaks posted it, would Wikileaks then be regarded as a music distributor? And would you feel justified in bullying Apple into carrying the stolen music?
I get your concern, as a journalist, about Apple's selectivity in posting legitimate journalism. But you haven't defined "the press." I dispute that Wikileaks is "the press." Wikileaks is a dump site, just like the old Napster was a dump site. Napster was not a music distributor any more than Wikileaks is a member of the press.
What Manning did was steal a work product. Neither he nor Wikileaks knew what was contained in the massive load of documents, so please rethink your contention that they were "targeting the powerful to reveal what they do." I don't buy that. What Ellsberg did was leak a *report* detailing how the government lied about Viet Nam. That is a completely different animal, and it's insulting for you to compare the two acts. What Manning did was download a lot of documents whose contents he didn't know, Wikileaks didn't bother vetting them or selecting material relevant to "revealing" what "the powerful" do. They just dumped the entire mass onto the internet without regard to the damage it could do to innocent people or how it would affect our relations with rogue nuclear nations.
Diplomacy isn't some idealistic beanbag, @Ryan. The liberals have completely discredited themselves over this issue.
#7 Posted by James, CJR on Wed 22 Dec 2010 at 10:16 AM
Dear Ryan.
Close your strike tag, and then enjoy your Christmas.
Sincerely, Thimbles.
#8 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 22 Dec 2010 at 09:25 PM