There's the story about how Bloomberg pays its reporters if they "move markets".

Would that create the appropriate incentive to explain this behavior?

People are having a bit of a field day with that, but how is it any different from any other paper which gives bonuses for stories which move subscriptions? Or simply the fact that a journalist's career progress is basically pegged to the importance of their stories?

It's a niche-specific metric for rewarding the same thing every publication does - reader interest. If a reader is interested in a financial article, pretty much by definition it will alter their market behaviour.

I actually agree, as with all journalism, that there is some incentive to write exaggerated articles. But it rarely causes respectable journalists to fabricate stories, and I can't see how this would be any different.

Also the ones calling no fouls are the primary targets and would be most affected by this as one of their selling points is their security levels.

Independent 3rd party review is needed.

Hanlon's razor.