> This is as stupid as saying Xinhua/Caixin have anonymous sources with solid evidence showing Trump is from Mars.
That tone is pretty uncalled for. The Bloomberg story may or may not be completely accurate, but it's fairly detailed and plausible. While you may categorically distrust anonymous sources, it's not stupid to think they may sometimes be right and that you can trust reputable journalists to vet what they say a fair amount of the time.
This story is still young. I wonder what other news organizations can find out about it (beyond the press release responses).
Also worth noting that Bloomberg has demonstrated its willingness to put journalistic integrity ahead of profits in the past. They’re currently blocked in China because of a story they ran years ago about the business connections of the country’s top leaders.
> that story a few years ago was backed by solid facts, independently confirmed by multiple sources. what bloomberg has this time?
Again, how do you know this story hasn't been confirmed by multiple sources and isn't backed by solid facts? IIRC, Bloomberg claims they confirmed details with sources within the US Government, Apple, and Amazon. Apple and Amazon have issued denials, but its quite possible those denials may have been lies or the people who made them may not have had all the facts.
Reputable journalists don’t base an entire story on anonymous sources: you use anonymous sources for background, you don’t use them as primary sources. If they don’t yet have anyone on record, then they shouldn’t be publishing stories until they do. Deep Thoat wasn’t the only source for Watergate: he was used as a means to obtain further evidence and sources.
How do you fact-check anonymous? Plausible has nothing to do with it. Plenty of things can be plausible, but that doesn’t make them even slightly true.
Assuming credibility for an anonymously sourced story is a folly, especially when the allegations are both market-moving and completely unverified. It’s irresponsible. They should have held the story until they had verifiable info.
Anonymous sources are only anonymous to readers, not the journalists behind the piece who do know the identity and vet the information before publishing. That's standard operating procedure.
It doesn't mean there are no dishonest journalists and made up sources, but assuming a source is real it is never without any verification at all.
Apple says they provided denials of this to Bloomberg before they posted and the article doesn’t (or didn’t when I read it) reflect that at all. The author chose to exclude that information. Or Apple is lying.
That tone is pretty uncalled for. The Bloomberg story may or may not be completely accurate, but it's fairly detailed and plausible. While you may categorically distrust anonymous sources, it's not stupid to think they may sometimes be right and that you can trust reputable journalists to vet what they say a fair amount of the time.
This story is still young. I wonder what other news organizations can find out about it (beyond the press release responses).