No, "move the markets" means that the reporters have convinced readers their article contains new and salient information. That's not quite the same thing. For example, this gives Bloomberg reporters a direct financial incentive to portray their information as more solid and well-founded than it actually is and downplay any hint that it's not in fact new.
I'm not convinced. If you only cared about the short term then yes you would do as you described. But both Bloomberg and the author are pursuing long term strategies. If you publish misleading/inaccurate articles consistently, then people will ignore you. The author and Bloomberg will both loose credibility. This is bad for the author who wants people to read what he writes, and is bad for Bloomberg.
>> "If you publish misleading/inaccurate articles consistently, then people will ignore you."
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.
> But both Bloomberg and the author are pursuing long term strategies.
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.
The principle seems sound, but if you just say that short-termism is not advantagious in the long-term, how do you account for most of press today, and what makes Bloomberg special?
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".
