Bloomberg News Killed Investigation, Fired Reporter, Then Sought To Silence His Wife

[jc456]

Bloomberg News Killed Investigation, Fired Reporter, Then Sought To Silence His Wife

Typical Leftist tactics. Must have picked that one up from Barry Obumma who was an expert of killing investigations and harassing reporters and quashing news.

Dumb. Rightists do it as well. Typical retarded partisan response ignoring the larger issues.

What is dumb here is trying to run and hide from the facts. Obama wrote the book on killing investigations, harassing and silencing reporters. Typical of you to try to deny it.

The secret backstory of how Obama let Hezbollah off the hook

An ambitious U.S. task force targeting Hezbollah's billion-dollar criminal enterprise ran headlong into the White House's desire for a nuclear deal with Iran

www.politico.com

Philip Haney, DHS whistleblower during Obama era, found dead, police say

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) whistleblower and Fox News contributor Phil Haney was found dead in Amador County, Calif., on Friday, according to a press release from local authorities.

www.foxnews.com

The Top 5 Investigations Obstructed by the Obama Administration

Democrats tolerated unprecedented obstruction for eight years.

pjmedia.com

Report: Obama’s Spying On The Press Was Far More Extensive Than Previously Thought

President Trump might be openly hostile to the mainstream media, but it was the Obama administration that was engaged in a widespread effort to thwart the media. Which do you think is more harmful …

issuesinsights.com

Obama Prosecuted More Journalists THAN ALL PRESIDENTS COMBINED

Barack Obama was a media wrecking ball, as he had the media paralyzed with fear. Remember when Obama declared his administration "scandal free?"

theblacksphere.net

Obama War on Journalism: Feds Raid Reporter, Seize Notes

Obama’s "war on journalism" has escalated recently with a federal SWAT raid on a reporter's home and the potential unmasking of whistleblowers in government. by Alex Newman

www.thenewamerican.com

Obama administration spied on Fox News reporter James Rosen: Report

The Justice Department spied extensively on Fox News reporter James Rosen in 2010, collecting his telephone records, tracking his movements in and out of the State Department and seizing two days of Rosen’s personal emails, the Washington Post reported on Monday. In a chilling move sure to rile...

www.yahoo.com

ya ya ya, your ODS is pretty obvious. How about the actual topic?

It's not ODS when it is all TRUE and the topic is Bloomberg, which is a mere shadow as bad as Obama! But your tongue would fall out of your mouth if you ever sad a single bad word about your master. How can you even complain about Bloomberg who is a democrat and a drizzle when you have Obama who is a democrat and like a typhoon?

Topic isn't Obama. Stop trying to derail the thread.

sad.

 

[justoffal]

Bloomberg is the epitome of elitist liberal pigs.

His locker room talk is far more vile than anything I have heard from Trump....

JO

 

[jwoodie]

I get you hate and blame leftists for everything and rightists are absolute angels.

Another example of your tedious moral equivalencies.

 

[jc456]

Thank you.

Do we NEED to regulate media beyond libel/slander laws?

Media in the social media age has entered an entirely new era, so maybe there needs to be some changes to enforce greater accountability - but, I am not comfortable at all with governments attempting to regulate freedom of the media and I don't see a way that it can be done without comprising it's ability to do it's job especially when it comes to investigating and reporting on governments.

If we talk only about people with "journalism credentials" - then slander/libel laws ought to be enough. Responsible media sources will print retractions and corrections and if readers don't like "bias" they have a lot of alternatives to choose from.

Enroaching on media rights is pretty much the same as free speech...

I don't think it's possible to regulate media even on slander issues. That by itself would implode the courts.

To regulate it on TRUTH? Who gets to be in charge of THAT? God Himself would have to descend from Heaven and yank a knot in our asses. The concept of GOVERNMENT doing so should terrify anyone, and I'm glad you agree that it's a no-go.

Unfortunately I think what we have is the best we can do, as long as the internet remains a place where people can freely speak their minds, at least in this country, post video evidence in spite of YouTube, and even act a damn fool the alternatives are worse. I'd rather have Alex Jones and his bullshit along with media matters and their bullshit playing a tug of war while the rest of us have to be mushrooms. Some of us will grow into the light, some will just stay down in that dark shitty muck.

.

I actually agree with you on that. WHO decides what the "truth" is? Scary thought! Slander/Libel laws work ok for creating some measure of accountability and I think that is good.

What I do worry about is deliberate misinformation - not through journalistic sources (because you can always look to multiple sources to figure things out) but through social media type outlets. I think we have entered an information warfare era and we lack, as a nation, the cognitive tools to deal with it.

this thread isn't about WHO either. why you talking about it? funny how you pick your battles. BTW, bloomberg is a nut job.

 

[Olde Europe]

And yet another reason I do not like Bloomberg....and NDA’s. How many stories have been killed by these? It also reveals China’s hidden power to influence or silence journalistic freedom and free speech (think NBA) around the world. It isn’t through military power but through the seduction of the marketplace.

What do you think, do newspapers kill stories or leave out some parts of stories to avoid pissing off a major advertiser?

Do newspapers avoid looking too deeply into things in case reporting on these might cost them access to major political figures?

As to NDAs, yes, these are ugly beasts, and yet they are ubiquitous. They are particularly ugly since one contracting party is usually threatened with severe damage or disadvantage in case they don't sign up. It's also the part most vulnerable to infringements they cannot fend off, and then also not talk about. That, however, doesn't fall on Bloomberg, primarily, but on legislatures. They should restrict what may, or may not, be part of an NDA, and at what point of harassment or threats the other party is no longer bound by it. Just for instance, as there is certainly more to be done to rectify this sordid state of affairs.

Overall, yes, Bloomberg New surrendered parts of their journalistic integrity to further Bloomberg's terminal business. That's pathetic, and Mr. Bloomberg should be take to task for it. There should not be any kind of extraneous influence on reporting. That's just journalism 101. On the other hand, I am a bit wary of that story line, not because Bloomberg didn't deserve criticism, but because it follows a familiar pattern of traditional-media bashing that has found its ultimate expression in "enemy of the people".

 

[Pete7469]

I actually agree with you on that. WHO decides what the "truth" is? Scary thought! Slander/Libel laws work ok for creating some measure of accountability and I think that is good.

What I do worry about is deliberate misinformation - not through journalistic sources (because you can always look to multiple sources to figure things out) but through social media type outlets. I think we have entered an information warfare era and we lack, as a nation, the cognitive tools to deal with it.

I see a lot of deliberate misinformation coming from "journalists" as we speak. Most people don't take the time to look into what is being published or broadcast to them. The social media sink holes are just as suspect. We are in agreement that our people seem to be collectively unable to discern fact from fiction out of intellectual laziness.

That's why a seasonal flu can become a life altering event, a bullshit impeachment can be invented to draw focus from the sexual deviants in DC when a guy like Epstein dies in jail, and another flu or disease can be downplayed and ignored while attention can be focused on a bunch of autistic bed wetters angry about Christians and rich people building a pipeline across federal property were no one even wants to live.

.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Thank you.

Do we NEED to regulate media beyond libel/slander laws?

Media in the social media age has entered an entirely new era, so maybe there needs to be some changes to enforce greater accountability - but, I am not comfortable at all with governments attempting to regulate freedom of the media and I don't see a way that it can be done without comprising it's ability to do it's job especially when it comes to investigating and reporting on governments.

If we talk only about people with "journalism credentials" - then slander/libel laws ought to be enough. Responsible media sources will print retractions and corrections and if readers don't like "bias" they have a lot of alternatives to choose from.

Enroaching on media rights is pretty much the same as free speech...

I don't think it's possible to regulate media even on slander issues. That by itself would implode the courts.

To regulate it on TRUTH? Who gets to be in charge of THAT? God Himself would have to descend from Heaven and yank a knot in our asses. The concept of GOVERNMENT doing so should terrify anyone, and I'm glad you agree that it's a no-go.

Unfortunately I think what we have is the best we can do, as long as the internet remains a place where people can freely speak their minds, at least in this country, post video evidence in spite of YouTube, and even act a damn fool the alternatives are worse. I'd rather have Alex Jones and his bullshit along with media matters and their bullshit playing a tug of war while the rest of us have to be mushrooms. Some of us will grow into the light, some will just stay down in that dark shitty muck.

.

I actually agree with you on that. WHO decides what the "truth" is? Scary thought! Slander/Libel laws work ok for creating some measure of accountability and I think that is good.

What I do worry about is deliberate misinformation - not through journalistic sources (because you can always look to multiple sources to figure things out) but through social media type outlets. I think we have entered an information warfare era and we lack, as a nation, the cognitive tools to deal with it.

I do not know if you know me from some of the other boards before I wander in on this peaceful reservation but I remember being mocked back in 2004 on Slate defunct message board when I mentioned the rise of Cyberterrorism and how countries like Russia and China will use this to their advantage.

Americans as a whole can not filter tabloid information, misinformation and correct information and are easily trick into believing that a certain news source is telling the truth.

Remember the twenty million Amish for Trump and how some on here believed the fake story?

So as you can see it is easier to fool the mass public and China will use this as their advantage with their media trolls that will spread misinformation while pretending they are innocent.

Also let me note this about Bloomberg hurt his news agency because trust is lost by those like me and if he or his staff were willing to kill that story then how many more stories did he kill to earn a favor with the Chinese Government so it calls to question if Bloomberg News is easily swayed then what about CNN, BBC, NPR and so on and how many news stories they killed because China might have been offended?

 

[Weatherman2020]

And yet another reason I do not like Bloomberg....and NDA’s. How many stories have been killed by these? It also reveals China’s hidden power to influence or silence journalistic freedom and free speech (think NBA) around the world. It isn’t through military power but through the seduction of the marketplace.

Bloomberg News Killed Investigation, Fired Reporter, Then Sought To Silence His Wife

The investigation into Chinese political elites would "wipe out everything we've tried to build there," Matthew Winkler, Bloomberg's editor-in-chief at the time, said on audiotape obtained by NPR.

www.npr.org

Michael Bloomberg's short-lived presidential bid reignited a long-simmering dispute over the widespread use of nondisclosure agreements at American corporations — especially at his own.

His namesake company, Bloomberg LP, has used nondisclosure agreements broadly to conceal allegations and silence complaints from employees of sexual harassment or a hostile work environment, as published reports have documented.

The story of one Bloomberg reporter and his wife showcases the widespread use of such legal restraints at the company — and how far their reach can extend.

Six years ago, Bloomberg News killed an investigation into the wealth of Communist Party elites in China, fearful of repercussions by the Chinese government. The company successfully silenced the reporters involved. And it sought to keep the spouse of one of the reporters quiet, too.

So why do you support Democrat practices? It’s not just Bloomberg

 

[Coyote]

And yet another reason I do not like Bloomberg....and NDA’s. How many stories have been killed by these? It also reveals China’s hidden power to influence or silence journalistic freedom and free speech (think NBA) around the world. It isn’t through military power but through the seduction of the marketplace.

Bloomberg News Killed Investigation, Fired Reporter, Then Sought To Silence His Wife

The investigation into Chinese political elites would "wipe out everything we've tried to build there," Matthew Winkler, Bloomberg's editor-in-chief at the time, said on audiotape obtained by NPR.

www.npr.org

Michael Bloomberg's short-lived presidential bid reignited a long-simmering dispute over the widespread use of nondisclosure agreements at American corporations — especially at his own.

His namesake company, Bloomberg LP, has used nondisclosure agreements broadly to conceal allegations and silence complaints from employees of sexual harassment or a hostile work environment, as published reports have documented.

The story of one Bloomberg reporter and his wife showcases the widespread use of such legal restraints at the company — and how far their reach can extend.

Six years ago, Bloomberg News killed an investigation into the wealth of Communist Party elites in China, fearful of repercussions by the Chinese government. The company successfully silenced the reporters involved. And it sought to keep the spouse of one of the reporters quiet, too.

So why do you support Democrat practices? It’s not just Bloomberg

Why do you support Republican practices? It’s not just Dems.

 

[Weatherman2020]

And yet another reason I do not like Bloomberg....and NDA’s. How many stories have been killed by these? It also reveals China’s hidden power to influence or silence journalistic freedom and free speech (think NBA) around the world. It isn’t through military power but through the seduction of the marketplace.

Bloomberg News Killed Investigation, Fired Reporter, Then Sought To Silence His Wife

The investigation into Chinese political elites would "wipe out everything we've tried to build there," Matthew Winkler, Bloomberg's editor-in-chief at the time, said on audiotape obtained by NPR.

www.npr.org

Michael Bloomberg's short-lived presidential bid reignited a long-simmering dispute over the widespread use of nondisclosure agreements at American corporations — especially at his own.

His namesake company, Bloomberg LP, has used nondisclosure agreements broadly to conceal allegations and silence complaints from employees of sexual harassment or a hostile work environment, as published reports have documented.

The story of one Bloomberg reporter and his wife showcases the widespread use of such legal restraints at the company — and how far their reach can extend.

Six years ago, Bloomberg News killed an investigation into the wealth of Communist Party elites in China, fearful of repercussions by the Chinese government. The company successfully silenced the reporters involved. And it sought to keep the spouse of one of the reporters quiet, too.

So why do you support Democrat practices? It’s not just Bloomberg

Why do you support Republican practices? It’s not just Dems.

Sorry, I’m not seeing fascism from the center or right. That’s 100% Democrats owned.

 

[JimBowie1958]

And Democrats wanted the old white, rich, guy, Bloomberg for President.

umh....no...apparently they didn’t.

Well, obviously some dems did, but it is true that most did not.

The DNC definitely liked Bloomberg more than Tulsi.

 

[JimBowie1958]

So why do you support Democrat practices? It’s not just Bloomberg

Why do you support Republican practices? It’s not just Dems.

What Republicans at Bloomberg spiked stories about the Chicoms?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Do we NEED to regulate media beyond libel/slander laws?

Yes, we should not allow our media to be owned by multinational corporations or any corporation linked to a foreign goobermint.