I wasn't aware that Bloomberg had unequivocally been demonstrated to have mislead anyone. At the moment, Bloomberg have made some allegations and several parties have made assertions in response to those allegations.
I don't understand your final paragraph.
1. The article in the OP 2. https://twitter.com/riskybusiness/status/1049429881031819264
The counter-stories I have seen around the Bloomberg story has been "let us parse these press releases to be certain that they say 'yes, this is flat-out wrong, there is no substance to this at all'".
If someone is saying "misleading", that someone is saying that denials as such can't be true.
"True but I'm angry 'cause the spin is so wrong" is actually quite a "head turner", whatever the actual situation.
Totally OT, but I wish there would be a policy on here (and elsewhere, but let's start small...) where a certain list of shibboleths like 'MSM' and 'HRC' and 'triggered' (just including that one to not single out any one side) would be prohibited on this site (and attempts at getting around it, like using 'M$M' instead, aggressively punished). Of course it's 'censorship' and many other bad things, but it would at least get rid of those posts that aren't being taken serious by 50% of the readership anyway, and therefore serve no purpose towards the overarching goal of having 'intelligent discussion'. If we're going to pretend we're all here to have balanced discussion and that this is no place for partisan warfare, we might as well create an environment that (tries to) reflect that.
That said, I understood MSM as Mainstream Media from context and results of 5-second web search, it was not very difficult to find this. When something becomes a concept, a name is appropriate and useful and learning new concepts and their names is one reason people are here. Why would this name offend you?
And it's only censorship for a very naive definition of the word. It's more tone policing, which ironically is one of the very phrases that would probably be put on the 'banned word list'. Which in turn indicates how it's not a very practical idea to actually implement. Maybe it should be seen more as a 'guideline to intelligent discussion', where anyone using loaded phrasing (either be it deliberately, which would signal them for not engaging in honest debate; or accidentally, which would signal them for not being informed enough to actually participate) should be 'encouraged' through social norms to learn how to better express themselves, where 'better' means in a way that de-escalates emotional flare ups rather than digging their heels in the sand, preparing for battle.
Another thing I found that it seems to me the way that you put yourself into a judge's position by deciding which is "intelligent discussion" make all the discussion un-intelligent.
Likewise, it is not controversial or even assuming to state that explicit tribalism and signaling of affiliation does not make for 'good' or 'high quality' (if you prefer those terms over 'intelligent') discussion. Sophistry is not 'intelligent' discussion. It may require high intelligence to pull off well, but it's not 'intelligent discussion'. I'm not saying which topics are 'intelligent' or not, or what position in those topics is, just that some forms of having any discussion are 'better' than others. It's a 'meta-judgement', if you will. 'Intelligent discussion' doesn't just mean 'discussion between two people who are intelligent and well informed on the subject'.
Again, what's the neutral equivalent? I mean the entities that often use some maybe unintentional but very sophisticated "deceptional" tricks( I know the word is quite strong). I’ve notice it very often but I guess a lot of readers might not aware of. I’m not assume I’m better than most readers here but just have broad connection to the other side of media and readers.
This could be said as "I hate what kind of story I read from those true facts that I told you." Which may well be - true. Apple and Amazon may have done real-denials but this sentence, at least, is maximum non-denial-denial. Bloomberg may well have burned the relationship that Appleboum had with the various people involved in this story and he's ready to say he very much hates how his name is here.
Which, if that's the only complaint, tends to give greater credence to the story. If X people are saying "false, completely!" and another portion are saying "true but spin, completely wrong focus" only one of these groups can be telling the true.
And sure, that doesn't keep Bloomberg's story from being propaganda.
The interviewee says that Bloomberg is inaccurate in that it appears to single out only SuperMicro servers. This article reinforces their claims by pointing out that not only is it an issue for SuperMicro, it’s true of the industry at large.
Bloomberg’s explanation for focusing on the SuperMicro bit is fairly clear. That’s where their sources confirmed. I’m pretty sure nowhere in the article does Bloomberg state that none of SuperMicro’s competitors have this issue. If anything, the SuperMicro incident which they have been able to find evidence for is held up as an example.
1. In first report, Bloomberg have strong specific claims: China already hacked the server used in some big companies. it's PLA who did the tampering. They have evidences/sources
2. In second report they provide weak evidence that not related to the strong claims: It's a general security issue all over the industry, A lot of hardware could be tampered, etc,etc. Although maybe exaggerated I believe it's true.
So talking about general security risk is already shifting the focus. If there's a 2nd report, it should be address the conflicts of the denial from Apple and Amazon which cause the dispute, not talking about some thing that can easily reach consensus and close related to the real controversial topic. If they want to talk general security issue, they should make it clear and better in separate time. By putting those 2 different things together, it makes an impression to average readers that 2nd part can support the 1st part. Which seems to me it’s a dishonest practise.
If Bloomberg is honest, they should apologize. Will it happen? Not likely. They are deliberately misleading.
Misleading is a mathematically high order lie. i.e. a lie about another lie that decorates the other lie into a non-lie so it can gain the support from many believers even it's not correct. In contrast, a blatant lie is a first order lie which is very clear right or wrong. It's not defendable.
That's a big difference between US/Europa MSM and the propaganda from some totalitarian regimes as I observed. Most audiance seem to be not aware of the former , and they often blieve those who know both are brainwashed by later.