The questions that remain at Bloomberg

Steven Brill writes for Reuters about the many questions that remain unanswered about the Bloomberg News snooping scandal.

Brill writes, “Second, Bloomberg is known for its rigorous training of reporters and a top-down control regime run by long-time editor in chief Matthew Winkler. So, if I were reporting this story, I would ask how much Winkler knew about this and whether he oversaw the training of his reporters to do the complicated maneuvers involved in pulling it off. He has not provided anything close to a full explanation of what happened.

“In fact, I can’t find one interview that Winkler has given since the scandal broke. He has only written an op-ed article that appeared in Bloomberg View, the site’s commentary section, saying, in part, ‘The error is inexcusable.’ What does he think the ‘error’ was? And who made it?

“Third, those $20,000 a year terminals are the core of the Bloomberg business that has made its proprietor, the mayor, one of America’s richest men. Everything else, including the news service whose reporters were spying on those $20,000 a year customers, is meaningless by comparison. At least where the company’s bottom line is concerned.

“So, ethical and legal issues aside, why were Winkler and his people allowed to endanger that core business with such a fundamental violation of trust? Bloomberg’s customers have long thought the $20,000 price was abusive enough, without knowing that they were paying $20,000 for the privilege of being monitored.

“Why would any business risk killing its franchise this way?

“Another question is why Winkler has not been reprimanded, much less fired, or even publicly criticized by Doctoroff. Which to me raises the question of who really is running Bloomberg. If the mayor is still ultimately the person in charge, reporters could examine why he has allowed Winkler to survive a mess that has undermined one of media’s richest franchises?”

Read more here.