And you were wondering just how stupid people working in banking were ........

BenjAii

This is hilarious; the Bloomberg style guide, and apparently the ONLY way any news is to be presented across the Bloomberg info empire ......

http://www.kottke.org/08/11/the-bloomberg-way-no-buts-about-it

"Bloomberg News stories, it declared, "have a structure that is as immutable as the rules that govern sonnets and symphonies." Every story needed to include "the Five Fs": first, fastest, factual, final, and future. Leads were to be exactly four paragraphs long, comprising the stating of a theme, a quotation in "plain English from someone who backs up that theme," numbers-based details that further support it, and an explanation of what's at stake. The use of "but" was banned -- it forced readers "to deal with conflicting ideas in the same sentence." Words such as "despite" and "however" were to be avoided for the same reason."

Stabshauptmann

I fail to see the humour, the stupidity or what this has to do with economics.

gerry87

They're writing articles to get facts down on pages in quickly in a clear concise manner. With the amount of news stories that bankers/traders have to wade through they don't need any sugar coating.

Leaving out 'but' makes sense, it forces the writer to write concisely and doesn't leave it up to the reader to interpert.

It's also due to the fact that bloomberg is a computer system, so standardising the way information is presented helps the system work. For example if there is always a quote in the third paragraph, the user can search for quotes and the computer will know exactly where to look for them in each article.

Also if the user knows the layout, s/he can skip straight to the paragraph that usually has the numbers in it.

So its actually an extremely good way to organise things.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

brianthebard

gerry87 wrote: »

They're writing articles to get facts down on pages in quickly in a clear concise manner. With the amount of news stories that bankers/traders have to wade through they don't need any sugar coating.

Leaving out 'but' makes sense, it forces the writer to write concisely and doesn't leave it up to the reader to interpert.

It doesn't make sense at all, it makes the writer work towards one angle or another on a story and keeps it from being balanced or offering a critique of an issue at hand. If someone is writing about a complex issue I want to see due consideration for all elements of the story and possible fallout. I don't want to see a lopsided, quasi neutral article that is written to lean towards a particular opinion.

If there was any doubt that this is the case, surely the banning of despite and however will show you what the purpose of this censorship is?

Bloomberg is a new flash service, and an excellent service at that.

I wouldn't expect to see AER articles on it, but I would expect brief summaries of whats going on. I can then go investigate it further if I need / want to.

europerson

It works very well. As zaraba says, if you need to find out more about something, it's easily done. For people working in certain fields of banking, they're not going to have to know everything that's happening everywhere, but a brief summary of the major things that are going on keeps them informed enough, while they can look into the issues that affect them more, if they need to.

mikemac

BenjAii wrote: »

This is hilarious; the Bloomberg style guide, and apparently the ONLY way any news is to be presented across the Bloomberg info empire ......

I see from your sig you know a bit about business websites.

Ever used a bloomberg terminal? I doubt it as you'd know it works well

brianthebard

It seems that many people here are converts to the Bloomberg style.

BenjAii

micmclo wrote: »

Ever used a bloomberg terminal? I doubt it as you'd know it works well

As it happens, yes.

I didn't realise people would get so touchy about this. I was just pointing out that there is something funny about the Paris Hilton like idea of being shielded from having to strain yourself thinking about more than one thing at once. Just a joke thats all.

the title of this post is quite insulting to those in the banking industry, and the content of your first post reflects more on your understanding of banking then on that of the bankers themselves.

and now you try and weasel out with that cop out 'ah shure, twas just a joke like'.

BenjAii

Deleted User wrote: »

the title of this post is quite insulting to those in the banking industry, and the content of your first post reflects more on your understanding of banking then on that of the bankers themselves.

and now you try and weasel out with that cop out 'ah shure, twas just a joke like'.

Some people have a sense of humour about things, some people don't, I'm not responsible for that. I assume most people in the banking industry have a strong enough constitution to cope with what might be said about them in an internet forum.

brianthebard

Deleted User wrote: »

the title of this post is quite insulting to those in the banking industry, and the content of your first post reflects more on your understanding of banking then on that of the bankers themselves.

and now you try and weasel out with that cop out 'ah shure, twas just a joke like'.

It was hardly a personal attack on you. If you don't like the first post perhaps you should report it? I think BenjAii made an interesting and pertinent point, you would expect people in a complex industry like the banking industry to want to give themselves all the information possible, not dumb it down for themselves.

gerry87

brianthebard wrote: »

It doesn't make sense at all, it makes the writer work towards one angle or another on a story and keeps it from being balanced or offering a critique of an issue at hand. If someone is writing about a complex issue I want to see due consideration for all elements of the story and possible fallout. I don't want to see a lopsided, quasi neutral article that is written to lean towards a particular opinion.

If there was any doubt that this is the case, surely the banning of despite and however will show you what the purpose of this censorship is?

Note the quote was "to deal with conflicting ideas in the same sentence." Nobody said an article can only deal with one side of the story. "But" must be used within a sentence and can lead to an ambuigious run-on sentence. Banning the word but makes the writer separate different ideas into different sentences, it's just a better writing style for the purpose, not banning different views.

If you don't want someone to argue with something you post, don't post it - this is the internet after all. Besides calling a whole group of people stuipd, in a place where these 'stupid' people are very likely to see it, based on something you misunderstood might get some people's backs up.

Stabshauptmann

BenjAii wrote: »

I was just pointing out that there is something funny about the Paris Hilton like idea of being shielded from having to strain yourself thinking about more than one thing at once.

brianthebard wrote: »

I think BenjAii made an interesting and pertinent point, you would expect people in a complex industry like the banking industry to want to give themselves all the information possible, not dumb it down for themselves.

I dont see how the information is being dumbed down.

The style of the reports is being standardised to ensure that reports are comprehensive (5 Fs), and so they can be read quickly.

The editors dont want articles to contain "but", "despite", "however" etc because they dont want to draw or infer conclusions. I would see this as the opposite to dumbing down.

BenjAii

gerry87 wrote: »

If you don't want someone to argue with something you post, don't post it - this is the internet after all. Besides calling a whole group of people stuipd, in a place where these 'stupid' people are very likely to see it, based on something you misunderstood might get some people's backs up.

To be fair, must people would clearly infer from the article (which quotes an original article in Vanity Fair) that there are not 'buts' to be used in the article, which must only present one idea at a time.

Here is some further comment from The New Yorker on the same article ...

"Another interesting tidbit from the piece is that before the release of anticipated news—payroll numbers, earnings reports, and so on—Bloomberg reporters write three versions of the same story, reflecting the three possible outcomes (the news was better than, worse than, or the same as expected)."

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/jamessurowiecki/2008/11/one-thought-per.html

Although the underlying point was to question the value of information presented in this way by Bloomberg, just want to make it clear it was my intention to do this in a light hearted way as a joke, though I accept some people don't see it that way.

Having worked for a company that produces data products similar to other Bloomberg data products I can see the funny side of this.

brianthebard

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

I dont see how the information is being dumbed down.

The style of the reports is being standardised to ensure that reports are comprehensive (5 Fs), and so they can be read quickly.

The editors dont want articles to contain "but", "despite", "however" etc because they dont want to draw or infer conclusions. I would see this as the opposite to dumbing down.

Ok this is the bloomberg source we are talking about right? Please show me where there is due regard for all sides of the issue?

For comparision, this is how the ny times dealt with the issue. Look about half way down where a paragraph starts with "But" and they shift to consider a number of issues that aren't treated at all by the first article.


p.s. if the problem is one of being able to read a piece quickly, might I suggest speed reading rather than dumbing down as a technique?

gerry87

BenjAii wrote: »

To be fair, must people would clearly infer from the article (which quotes an original article in Vanity Fair) that there are not 'buts' to be used in the article, which must only present one idea at a time.

How must it only present one idea at a time?

Person A said X but Person B said Y.
Person A said X. Person B said Y.

They say the same thing, one without the word but.

BenjAii wrote: »

Here is some further comment from The New Yorker on the same article ...

"Another interesting tidbit from the piece is that before the release of anticipated news—payroll numbers, earnings reports, and so on—Bloomberg reporters write three versions of the same story, reflecting the three possible outcomes (the news was better than, worse than, or the same as expected)."

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/jamessurowiecki/2008/11/one-thought-per.html

Although the underlying point was to question the value of information presented in this way by Bloomberg, just want to make it clear it was my intention to do this in a light hearted way as a joke, though I accept some people don't see it that way.

Having worked for a company that produces data products similar to other Bloomberg data products I can see the funny side of this.

That strikes me as anothe really clever way to handle news. So when news comes out, they can distribute it within seconds instead of taking 10 mins to write an article. I'm not arguing, just different views I guess. Interesting none the less. Bloomberg really amazes me.

gerry87

brianthebard wrote: »

Ok this is the bloomberg source we are talking about right? Please show me where there is due regard for all sides of the issue?

For comparision, this is how the ny times dealt with the issue. Look about half way down where a paragraph starts with "But" and they shift to consider a number of issues that aren't treated at all by the first article.


p.s. if the problem is one of being able to read a piece quickly, might I suggest speed reading rather than dumbing down as a technique?

I don't think the quote was talking about the bloomberg website, on the actual bloomberg terminal stories are very short and concise.

Idu

brianthebard wrote: »

Ok this is the bloomberg source we are talking about right? Please show me where there is due regard for all sides of the issue?

For comparision, this is how the ny times dealt with the issue. Look about half way down where a paragraph starts with "But" and they shift to consider a number of issues that aren't treated at all by the first article.


p.s. if the problem is one of being able to read a piece quickly, might I suggest speed reading rather than dumbing down as a technique?

Bloomberg is a news service not a newspaper. Their job is to report the news as fast as possible not to offer a balanced argument

pauldiv

BenjAii wrote: »

As it happens, yes.

I didn't realise people would get so touchy about this. I was just pointing out that there is something funny about the Paris Hilton like idea of being shielded from having to strain yourself thinking about more than one thing at once. Just a joke thats all.

There is something funny about this post that reminds one of the two twin brothers in the film Good Morning Vietnam who were responsible for censuring the news reports coming in from the field.

It is disgraceful that you should be pulled up for your witty observation.
This is a public forum and if others feel that you should be reported then I would suggest that they create their own subscription based forum complete with podcasts in a tone similar to the Newsnight Review.

Économiste Monétaire

pauldiv wrote: »

There is something funny about this post that reminds one of the two twin brothers in the film Good Morning Vietnam who were responsible for censuring the news reports coming in from the field.

It is disgraceful that you should be pulled up for your witty observation.
This is a public forum and if others feel that you should be reported then I would suggest that they create their own subscription based forum complete with podcasts in a tone similar to the Newsnight Review.

Boards.ie isn't a public good, as far as I know :rolleyes:. Also, people who use Bloomberg terminals responded to the original statement. If one does not want to have an opinion questioned, or 'pulled up', then why post it?

Mikel

The BB news service is not for people in 'banking', it is for people who work in dealing/trading rooms.
As such it is designed with speed in mind.

I wouldn't have a problem with the fact they have a policy regarding conciseness and simplicity, just that the articles they write are often braindead, their analytics are often nonsense, the static data in their database is often wrong, their customer service is appalling.........
Glorified email system really, and their news is slower than Reuters.

pinder

youv no idea just how stupid people in banking can be.i know someone who works in a large branch,low level but been there for twenty years.as we know the two big ones, AIB and BoI are in difficulty and there is a high chance of job losses.IBOA have been holding meetings discussing the distinct possibility of said job losses.but this person told me that at least three people have come in in the last month for job interviews.this kind of insanely stupid behaviour goes on the whole time in banks.this person also told me of when there was a promotion available,around ten applied for it.most with an average of at least ten years experience and a good knowledge of how to do the job.the person who got the job was a daughter of a manager of another branch with no experience.not only that but one of the applicants was asked to help train her.within 6months she asked to be returned to her last job because she was not able to do this one,even with the relevant training.this kind of nepotism and bad decision making goes on constantly in banks.the funny thing is the person i know working in the bank is the one getting givin out to by customers unhppy with the current situation while the big wigs are upstairs cooking up their next idiotic plan

babytooth

BenjAii wrote: »

As it happens, yes.

I didn't realise people would get so touchy about this. I was just pointing out that there is something funny about the Paris Hilton like idea of being shielded from having to strain yourself thinking about more than one thing at once. Just a joke thats all.

they are not paid to think and i don't want to read what they think.
It affects my position different than anyone elses.

And, they are driven by keyword content that dictates alot of auto trading systems...

babytooth

Mikel wrote: »

The BB news service is not for people in 'banking', it is for people who work in dealing/trading rooms.
As such it is designed with speed in mind.

I wouldn't have a problem with the fact they have a policy regarding conciseness and simplicity, just that the articles they write are often braindead, their analytics are often nonsense, the static data in their database is often wrong, their customer service is appalling.........
Glorified email system really, and their news is slower than Reuters.

disagree, depends what mkts u use. I've a X3000 and the Bberg Anywhere and i use bberg 95% of my time. I'm NY based so its data is better than Reuters, It has better excel functions and some of its pricing tools are better....

Depends on your role, by Reuters is more so a treasruy dealing utility whereas Bberg stands more as a trading tool...and its also mkt location dependant

Mikel

babytooth wrote: »

disagree, depends what mkts u use. I've a X3000 and the Bberg Anywhere and i use bberg 95% of my time. I'm NY based so its data is better than Reuters, It has better excel functions and some of its pricing tools are better....

Depends on your role, by Reuters is more so a treasruy dealing utility whereas Bberg stands more as a trading tool...and its also mkt location dependant

To be fair I was comparing Reuters news to BB news, I always found Reuters much faster.
Personally I wouldn't use BB to price a can of dog food

babytooth

Mikel wrote: »

To be fair I was comparing Reuters news to BB news, I always found Reuters much faster.
Personally I wouldn't use BB to price a can of dog food

each to their own...i can point out endless faults with reuters feed.
BB news is factual info...plain and simple. i dont want an editorial coment, i can make my own mind up.

And reuters isn't so hot.

but then it depends on what kinda terminal you have. I got the real deal from both and i prefer bberg, its more accurate for many markets....like oil, fx, fi and cds pricing...

Mikel

Maybe it's a licensing issue, I always found Reuters much faster, but when you think about it that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Maybe we weren't paying enough for it to be real time

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Blackjack

Yes, obviously everyone who works in Banking is stupid because of the way Bloomberg write their news reports.


FAIL thread, TBH.