I mean, obviously, it stands to reason that the right actor with the right investment portfolio and control of the right media outlets could pull something like this off, but it seems that there are very, very few people/companies in that position.

In fact, the Jeff Bezos / WaPo / Amazon nexus is perhaps the only example I can think of where this sort of thing is even possible, let alone carried out.

Do you have examples? I'd genuinely love to learn.

I think it's easiest to logically consider everything in reverse. Let's assume you're correct, that this sort of thing never happens. So that entails two possibilities. The first:

- No reporters, or individuals with the ability to influence what is written, have vested interests.

I think the above can be pretty easily dismissed as false. But if it's false we can assume at least some people have vested interests. Which leads to the next possibility:

- Those with vested interests choose to never actively utilize their position to further their interests

And again, I think we can pretty safely declare that's false. So it's not a matter of does it happen, but to what scale it happens. And that is going to be pure speculation. Although it would logically follow that the more people that a vested interest in event x, the more common the occurrence of biased media in favor of provoking x would be expected to be seen.

That is not why she went to prison.

The why was most likely insider trading allegations.

> for lying to federal investigators about a stock sale that she called ''a small personal matter.''

The Citron Report's author often finds stocks that have gone up, places shorts, and then promotes the idea that these companies are scams with no fundamental value. He's made a considerable amount of money doing this.

This guy runs a blog about companies that he thinks are over-valued, and he shorts their stock. He's transparent about all of this. His readers / investors / the public know that he's likely short these stocks and that he makes a business of both using this investment strategy and blogging about it. They follow his advice at their own risk, with all of the information fully available.

There's a HUGE difference between that and getting into a position that you don't disclose, manipulating a media outlet into running coverage that appears objective but which is actually designed to do nothing but help your position, and then cashing out.

This seems a clear case of bashing .. and if so, it means the article is a compliment to AMD.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis#Inacc...