I am very confused by the events and timeline detailed in the article.
Bloomberg (Edit: Bloomberg News) published a story on the Xi family wealth in 2012 and were banned for it. But this article says they were still investigating and writing that story in 2013. And that they buried it. And that they did so to avoid upsetting the CCP etc.
They even have quotes:
"late Oct 2013":
>"It is for sure going to, you know, invite the Communist Party to, you know, completely shut us down and kick us out of the country," Winkler said. "So, I just don't see that as a story that is justified."
Except apparently Winkler, "founding editor in chief" didn't know that bloomberg news was already banned in China and had been for a year and for already publishing this story!?
Has someone just massively screwed up their dates?
* The extent that spouses' activities effect employee NDAs
* When and whether NDAs are appropriate both in Journalism and other industries
* The CCP and Chinese governments abuse of economic powers to silent dissent, in this case internationally and US and other governments compliance with that policy.
* Connections between wealth and political power, both in China and the world
* Whether being part of the larger Bloomberg entity strengthens BBG News or makes them more liable to external pressure
I also think Winklers position (assuming it was his position, since apparently all this happened after it had already happened?) was very sensible:
>Winkler alluded to that in his remarks. "There's a way to use the information you have in such a way that enables us to report, but not kill ourselves in the process and wipe out everything we've tried to build there," he told the reporting team. Bloomberg News and Winkler declined to comment for this story.
Aka: we can't publish this as we do too much business there, but we could leak it to someone else without the same exposure
Sadly the article seems to make a bad job of covering the basic facts and it's can't help but quote emotional projection instead of giving clear outlines of events. Good luck with this one (gender non-specific) guys!
> Bloomberg published a story on the Xi family wealth in 2012 and were banned for it.
...
> Except apparently Winkler, "founding editor in chief" didn't know that bloomberg news was already banned in China and had been for a year and for already publishing this story!?
No, the Bloomberg News websites were blocked. Bloomberg News reporters were not thrown out, Bloomberg Terminal sales were not terminated. Blocking the websites is a far cry from "kick[ing] us out of the country".
>After the first investigative project ran in 2012, the Chinese authorities had searched Bloomberg's news bureaus, delayed visas for reporters and ordered state-owned companies not to sign new leases for Bloomberg's primary product: its terminals.
That would make some sense, though it seems like they were pretty damn close.
So why not mention the 2012 article and set all this in its context?
The story here is "Once bitten twice shy", so why mash it up so badly I can't tell if they've been bitten already or they're hesitating after the bite.
And why open it all with quotes like "I was not a human being"?
It's like the intro to a story about sexism has been pasted in instead of the intro to the story about CCP censorship then someone hit publish without proofing it.
Bloomberg (Edit: Bloomberg News) published a story on the Xi family wealth in 2012 and were banned for it. But this article says they were still investigating and writing that story in 2013. And that they buried it. And that they did so to avoid upsetting the CCP etc.
They even have quotes:
"late Oct 2013":
>"It is for sure going to, you know, invite the Communist Party to, you know, completely shut us down and kick us out of the country," Winkler said. "So, I just don't see that as a story that is justified."
Except apparently Winkler, "founding editor in chief" didn't know that bloomberg news was already banned in China and had been for a year and for already publishing this story!?
Has someone just massively screwed up their dates?
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-censorship-bloomber...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Websites_blocked_in_mainland_C...
There is a lot to discuss here:
* The extent that spouses' activities effect employee NDAs
* When and whether NDAs are appropriate both in Journalism and other industries
* The CCP and Chinese governments abuse of economic powers to silent dissent, in this case internationally and US and other governments compliance with that policy.
* Connections between wealth and political power, both in China and the world
* Whether being part of the larger Bloomberg entity strengthens BBG News or makes them more liable to external pressure
I also think Winklers position (assuming it was his position, since apparently all this happened after it had already happened?) was very sensible:
>Winkler alluded to that in his remarks. "There's a way to use the information you have in such a way that enables us to report, but not kill ourselves in the process and wipe out everything we've tried to build there," he told the reporting team. Bloomberg News and Winkler declined to comment for this story.
Aka: we can't publish this as we do too much business there, but we could leak it to someone else without the same exposure
Sadly the article seems to make a bad job of covering the basic facts and it's can't help but quote emotional projection instead of giving clear outlines of events. Good luck with this one (gender non-specific) guys!