Interesting. So they're reporting on a competitor and are known to try to move markets with their stories. Is there oversight? Since I have no legal training I ask naively, do protections for journalism cover a situation where reporters aim to influence and persuade (like editorials) rather than provide "just the facts?"

Given that the newspapers at the founding of the republic were nakedly partisan and biased and the founders were well aware of it, yes, the first amendment protects journalists who produce biased bullshit.

You can only be prosecuted for slander and libel, and there is a high bar to prove it.

How about SuperMicro? Unproven accusations go unpunished?

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".