Adam Penenberg, the editor of PandoDaily.com, writes that the revelations that Bloomberg reporters used their terminals to snoop on Wall Street bankers is not much different than News Corp. journalists hacking into people’s phones.
Penenberg writes, “This may not sound like much, but in the hypercompetitive arena of business journalism and the even more secretive world of Wall Street it’s enough to offer a reporter leverage. Last summer, after JPMorgan Chase experienced a multi-billion trading loss, some Bloomberg reporters called the bank to find out whether the traders responsible had been fired. ‘They cited the fact that the traders had gone silent on the terminal,’ the Times reported. Reporters did the same thing with Goldman Sachs, when they sought to find out the fate of one of the firm’s partners. This time, instead of copping silence, which is what Chase did, Goldman complained, and the activities came to light.
“How different is this from News Corp. and its phone hacking scandal? With Bloomberg you have customers paying roughly $20,000 a year per terminal and rely on them to help execute trades with vast sums of money at stake. With the phone hacking scandal you had employees of Rupert Murdoch-owned newspapers accessing voicemails belonging to politicians, celebrities, and the British Royal Family. They also tapped into the phones of relatives of deceased British soldiers, victims of the July 2005 London bombings, and a murdered schoolgirl.
“Hacking voicemail is illegal. In a famous case involving journalism ethics, Cincinnati Enquirer reporter Mike Gallagher hacked into voicemail belonging to executives of Chiquita Banana to help him research a damning story on the company’s labor practices in Latin America. When Chiquita threatened to sue for libel, the paper, owned by Gannet, caved and published a front-page apology for three straight days and renounced the series. Nevertheless, Gannet ended up paying Chiquita $14 million and Gallagher was convicted of unlawful interception of communications and unauthorized access to voice-mail system. Gallagher was sentenced to parole and community service and eventually a judge expunged his conviction
“If you think about it, Bloomberg reporters’ actions were not dissimilar to Gallagher and News Corp.’s. They intercepted information they were not supposed to have and gained unauthorized access to customers’ accounts. The difference: The latter is illegal. The former? It’s hard to say. Plus News Corp. employees also bribed officials to gain access to information, so on the sliminess scale Murdoch wins (or loses, depending on your point of view).”
Read more here. Just to be clear, the Bloomberg reporters did not have access to sensitive personal information about the Wall Street bankers.
Priscilla Ellington has been hired by Business Insider as vice president of BI Live, its…
Pia Sarkar, deputy global business editor at The Associated Press, was installed as the new…
Cybersecurity Dive has hired Eric Geller to be a senior reporter. He will start on April 21.…
Bloomberg News is one of the biggest financial and business news organizations in the world.…
Bloomberg News is looking for a dynamic, versatile, and passionate journalist to join our DC…
This reporter will cover Long Island’s commercial real estate market and retail industry, with a…
View Comments
Unlike News Corp., Bloomberg reporters did not break the law or even company policy. They accessed a function that showed when a customer last logged in, what their most popular functions were, and any info entered by the Bloomberg sales rep who serviced the account. Pretty different than bribing public officials to gain access to personal info and giving false hope to the family of a deceased teen that they were still alive.
I used to work at Bloomberg, and the function in question can be compared to knowing when someone last used Facebook and what their favorite apps on the site are, but not what their status updates say, what their personal emails were about, or what profiles they looked at. I can see why Goldman et al didn't like reporters having access to that info, but calling it tantamount to News Corp's actions is over the top.