I used to like bloomberg but don't currently have it. I watched it a lot through the 2008 - 2009 shenanigans. I spent a lot of time trying to 'trade the news' in some respect. I've come to understand that a lot of news reporters/channels/sites really do spew out a lot of non-falsifiable crap that sounds very technical (Reuters is a classic example).
If, for example, today the stock market (or currency or whatever) has gone up or down they will state it is for some reason, when in fact it did what it did probably for a number of different reasons or a mixture of many. When it comes down after a relative high it's declared as 'profit taking' but it's not necessarily a fact, it's some space filling noise that the news caster produces.
Or, a market gaps up a day after a really big negative day but its still lower than where it opened yesterday. So it's higher than yesterdays close, but they just report that the market is up, it's not up, and they have all these bullshit reasons why it did a thing it didn't even do.
Also one piece of advice I've often used to some success is to fade the news. By the time it's on the screen of Bloomberg, CNBC, Reuters etc, it's already history and the big shots have already made their moves and the markets on a rebound.
The truth I think is that if a channel really showed useful stuff to traders all the time it would be a very dry and numerical show to watch. Perhaps the newscasters pick up some kind of market emotion that is conveyed to the viewer. On a down day they are somber or conciliatory on an up day they communicate a happy optimism (only to seemingly completely change their worldview within 24hrs).
