Re:The Plumber Problem
by CamperBob2 on Saturday August 19, 2023 @03:58AM
(#37186577)
Because Business Insider is such a great source.
Whatever. Read the article. It contains direct quotes.
Accusations of market manipulation are better backed up by strong evidence, because that is actually a fellony.
Re:The Plumber Problem
by CamperBob2 on Saturday August 19, 2023 @04:31AM
(#37186748)
Illegal or not, it's defamatory if untrue. I assume that Bloomberg would sue for libel if the quote from their reporter were fabricated.
So, a plain statement of fact then? Your initial claim was that Bloberg rwporters are paid to manipulate / move the market. Said quote doesn't support that.
Re:The Plumber Problem
by CamperBob2 on Saturday August 19, 2023 @02:02PM
(#37191396)
I said they were paid to move the market, which is the case according to their own reporters. They are not allowed to do that directly, but they have both the right and the ability to choose their subjects and slant their stories to achieve an identical effect.
What is your interest in carrying water for a company whose representatives admit to market-harming journalism practices? More important, what does such a company have to do with my expressed wish for an unbiased news source?
If you want just the facts so, try Reuters or AP, basically the source of the majority of news stroies we are fed by media (the exception being in-house investigated stories, but those are rarer by the day and flanked by so much filler articles that it is hard to filter the facts out). Also, professional inteligence organizations can be spectatularly wrong as well. Sometimes a lone, local jourbalist on the ground witj working internet for soke background research has it better. Local, because some random person from far away will lack the necessary backgroing and context to deliver more than some isolated, uninformed, highly objective opinion.