Henderson then pressed the ex-mayor on how Bloomberg media would cover him during a campaign. The billionaire said he had already engaged in discussions about the issue with Bloomberg’s head of news, John Micklethwait.
“We’ve always had a policy that we don’t cover ourselves. I happen to believe, in my heart of hearts, you can’t be independent and nobody’s going to believe that you’re independent,” he said.
“And quite honestly, I don’t want the reporters I’m paying to write a bad story about me! I don’t want them to be independent. So you’re going to have to do something,” he added with a laugh.
Bloomberg said his companies would either completely divest from political coverage or pepper news with frequent disclaimers about ownership.
I knew it was probably missing context, but even with more context it’s not that reassuring.
I agree wholeheartedly that it’s a positive move to abstain from political coverage when your majority stakeholder is running for office. However, the messaging doesn’t sit right with me.
Even if you can’t be truly independent, you should still strive for integrity.
I have the opposite knee jerk reaction and see people openly talking about their biases and dubious incentives to be an indication of honesty and forthrightness. It's when people make a big song and dance about how pro-independance they are and make a whole song and dance about it that I get suspicious. It reflects not just a lack of honesty towards others but even a lack of honesty towards oneself and an inflated view of their own ethics.
Vertically EVERYBODY with a conflict of interest will put their finger on the scale given enough opportunity.
Yes the candid approach is great, similar to the Intercept, but read elsewhere in the article about the how they haven't followed through on not covering these things. That's very bad.
That context seems very important - completely changes my initial opinion.
It's a difficult choice. I would have liked him to say that Bloomberg Media should be free to write pieces showing his shortcomings - but its not very realistic of me to expect that.
I'm not sure if I would have the same opinion - but his PoV sounds very human. I'm not sure if I would have liked my employees causing issues for me either, if I was in his position.
Couldn't agree more. Journalism hasn't been independent ever since advertisers became the primary the customer and readers became the product being sold.
When has it been otherwise? I don’t have numbers, but I suspect print subscriptions typically only cover delivery and printing costs, with maybe a little surplus beyond that. Advertising has always been what paid the bills for print publications.
This has always been the predominant business model for periodicals. The other, much smaller alternative is paying a lot of money for access to what amounts to research, and it barely exists outside the financial markets.
For a relatively brief, glorious period in the middle of the 20th century, the majority of Americans held--or at least were kind--to the idea that independent, objective, professional journalism could exist and was valuable. During that period publishers could profitably compete attempting to sell that product.
Today most Americans, learned and unlearned, are significantly more cynical, habituated to reject the idea that independent, objective, professional journalism could exist. Regardless of the philosophical truth, what's certainly true as a practical matter is that it cannot exist even aspirationally unless we believe it can exist.
I dunno I went to high-school with a guy that went on to win a Pulitzer for covering the aftermath of the War on Terror, focusing on when the troops involved came home and the effects on them and their families and communities.
One guy in my home town came back a serial killer and started murdering women. Others formed gangs or killed themselves or harmed their families. There is real journalism out there still.
Did I read that right? “Don’t want them to be independent”
What’s the point of journalism then?