> Uber Technologies Inc.’s net loss widened to $1.46 billion in the third quarter, according to people with knowledge of the matter, as the ride-hailing leader struggled to fend off competition, legal challenges and regulatory scrutiny.
"according to people with knowledge of the matter.."
How is reporting like this legal? Is this not speculation?
It baffles me that no fact checking/ benchmarking exists for such a major news platform.
>It's strange to me that you assume that just because sources aren't named in public that no fact checking occurred.
It's hard to take things seriously when people/organizations do not take/put skin in the game.
From a risk perspective it is genuis, but from a readers perspective it is problematic in my opinion.( I am not a fan of gossip)
What's stranger to me is how you assume that they fact check....
For all I know they do, but it defeats the purpose of confidentiality agreements if sources speak up when they are explicitly told not too.
(I am referring to confidential finance contracts)
No, in the same way that court decisions based on witness testimony are not.
It is, of course, difficult for outside parties to verify the reporting, but journalism has never been legally bound to the standards appropriate to scientific research where reproducibility is key.
> It baffles me that no fact checking/ benchmarking exists for such a major news platform.
The absence of named sources does not imply the absence of fact checking.
>It is, of course, difficult for outside parties to verify the reporting, but journalism has never been legally bound to the standards appropriate to scientific research where reproducibility is key
What about when false information could cause financial harm?
It is ironic considering that BBG( Bloomberg is private )
This sort of formulation is extremely common in all kinds of news reporting. Journalists frequently have recourse to anonymous sources - so frequent that there are strong journalistic ethical injunctions against exposing such sources.
Deep Throat was 'a person familiar with the matter'.
>so frequent that there are strong journalistic ethical injunctions against exposing such sources.
Ethical injuctions? Lol, yeah if maybe the industry was not based off of advertising as a primary source of revenue. The way that it currently stands getting those clicks/eyeballe is way more important than ethics.
I am not saying that journalism is ethical 'in general', but that among journalists there is a strong taboo against revealing sources. Whether we compare that to the omertà code of the Mafia or the Hippocratic oath is a different matter.
"according to people with knowledge of the matter.."
How is reporting like this legal? Is this not speculation?
It baffles me that no fact checking/ benchmarking exists for such a major news platform.