People keep repeating that here on HN as if it's a bad thing.
New information moves markets, and the larger impact it has, the more it will move markets, because markets are built on information. And obviously the function of the free press is to uncover and disseminate new information, the more meaningful the better. So it's not underhanded -- it's noble and completely aligned with good.
(Of course if reporters make up information or lie it's bad, but that's a separate issue, for which lazy or unethical reporters are generally fired.)
"Free press" doesn't mean you can skew facts to paint a deceptive picture as in this case, you can see the graphs. This is the same Bloomberg that reported about the Super Micro story and we all know what happened.
There should also be some accountability and you can't just shrug it off because you're the "free press".
New information moves markets, and the larger impact it has, the more it will move markets, because markets are built on information. And obviously the function of the free press is to uncover and disseminate new information, the more meaningful the better. So it's not underhanded -- it's noble and completely aligned with good.
(Of course if reporters make up information or lie it's bad, but that's a separate issue, for which lazy or unethical reporters are generally fired.)