Didn't Bloomberg ruin their tech reputation with the still-unproven (years later) and probably baseless claims of nano chips planted in the supply chain of Supermicro ?

People keep asking that. Seems like every few weeks for however long it's been, I see a comment like yours.

I haven't seen anyone mention what news source meets the standard of never having published an article with insufficient evidence according to one or more people on the internet.

I mean, obviously not the NY Times, for instance, right?

A good news source would retract their initial article(s) when experts debunked them and nobody could corroborate, not double down with even less evidence.

The combination of: the absolutely terrible article being an obvious hit piece, the potential damage of the claims with almost no real evidence to back them up, and the complete lack of contrition or accountability.

I don’t think it ruined Bloomberg’s reputation entirely (I still love and frequently read Money Stuff), but it did eviscerate any credibility they had in highly technical, investigative technology reporting. And the refusal to admit the failures publicly definitely calls into question their editorial process and organizational culture.

Also, the idea that ‘thing x’ shouldn’t be criticized because ‘thing y’ is also bad is pretty clear “whataboutism” and an unhelpful way to address valid criticism.

What concrete proof does your article have? Bezos literally has access to his phone and the text that MBS sent him, containing the exploit. You're going to take some conspiracy theory based on rumors over the analysis of the actual phone that was hacked?

The affair and all those things are probably true, but that doesn't really negate the fact that he was most likely also hacked by MBS.

Can anyone read your URL since it's behind a paywall?