Ouch...media accountability...ABC is about to feel it...

a reply to: Vasa Croe

There was an investor alert that the new tax bill had fallen through just before the event.
People are getting lazy these days and using tight trailing stops that auto sell on any pullback in the price of their stocks.
The Dow futures are gaped up over 500 points above the 350 point low tonight which will cause people to have to pay more to buy back in on Monday.
This appears choreographed but the media offers a menu of potential reasons for making investor decisions.

IMO it's a question of balance. We depend (OK, others depend) on the MSM to provide factual reporting that we all then use to adjust our lives. The market is only one area in which this happens.

In a perfect world, any news outlet that was consistently wrong would need no further punishment. The poor track record would take care of business itself, because their ratings would drop as more and more people refused to heed their reports. But, it's not a perfect world. As it stands now, the people are faced with a choice not between real news and fake news, but how much fake news and which way has it been skewed?

But Freedom of the Press is an important principle that should not be casually dismissed. Obviously, since the media is tasked with reporting to the public on government activities, no government agency should have any authority to restrict them. So who does/should have the authority? We, the people.

The question we find ourselves faced with, then, is what do we do when not enough we, the people, care enough to fulfill our role in this? What recourse should we as individuals have when we as a society have failed to control the awesome power of the press?

There is only one answer: the power we have always had, to petition the government for redress of injury, whether from the government itself or from others. The power to sue for damages. There is nothing else that can be used, for every other alternative places some additional power in the hands of the government, and that is antithetical to the very idea of a free press. Government must never, ever, be given authority over the press if we wish to have any potential of remaining a free people.

So yes, I support the right to sue the media for damages. However, that itself brings up another issue: in this partisan, topsy-turvy world we live in, how can we ensure that groups of partisan people will not act in order to remove the ability of the press to do their job completely, by suing them out of existence?

There is a principle of law that states that simply committing a tort is not sufficient to prevail; one must either intend to commit the tort, or be so negligent as to be reckless in the commission of the tort. I believe that is the answer. Allow legal challenges only where extreme negligence can be proven, or where extreme intent, evidenced by an ongoing pattern of partisan allegiances that promote an intentional departure from the barest journalistic standards, can be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Simple negligence and simple partisanship cannot be sufficient; but when activity rises to the point of jeopardizing the reputation of the media overall, lawsuits for damages must be allowed.

Back to the issue which sparked this thread... If Brian Ross can be shown in a court of law that his false reporting was motivated by intent, reckless disregard for the truth, or wanton partisanship without regard for truth or accuracy, AND if ABC can be shown to have been intentionally complacent in allowing Ross to carry out his nefarious reporting, then yes, ABC and Brian Ross individually should be liable for the amount of investment lost. We would lose ABC, but we would gain a more careful attention to the truth from the rest of the media, lest they themselves be next.

If Ross could be proven guilty but not ABC, then the entire responsibility should fall upon Mr. Ross's shoulders. Certainly that would not be sufficient to restore the losses (as might be the case with ABC itself), but it would completely destroy Brian Ross's ability to ever repeat his dastardly deed.

The media has enjoyed great freedom and flexibility to report on stories without fear of reprisal for a long time, but their own actions have made continuation of that policy highly undesirable. It's time they entered the realm of reality and either accept their responsibility or step aside for others to do so.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Yes the market in all likelihood could be tied to that report, however even the most ardent Trumper with a bit of business and or law sense would realize how stupid it would be to start trying to sue people over this. First of all, it would get nowhere, but you wouldn't want to live in the fantasy land where it did. Imagine the frivolous lawsuits over anything and everything, companies suing over lost profits because of bad reviews they felt in error, or the like. In fact even though this incident could be most clearly tied to the stock market, traders are vociferous news watchers so you could start suing over any and all bias.

Actually wait, maybe we should do this.

a reply to: Cauliflower

I need more info to understand what you mean. Are you saying there are other factors to consider that explain the sudden drop?

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: DanDanDat No it is not a strange argument. If I replaced the word FOX with MSNBC, CNN, ABC would you say the same thing you just did?

You admitted what FOX did didn't cause financial losses, so that argument is totally moot.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed I did not admit that. I simply said that I did not have the time to research that. And if you had read more of my posts you would have realized I was not just using FOX. So clearly I now know what side you are on. The right.....me I land in the middle. I actually do watch FOX and all the other MSM so that I can get both sides of a story then do my research and get to what I believe is the truth. But thank you for thinking about me.......

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: Vasa Croe Well I disagree. FOX has done the same thing in regards to false reports. Maybe not resulting in loss of money in the markets but I am sure I could find evidence of that but I am mobile. If this media accountability was a thing all major MSM would cease to exist.

then maybe it needs to become a thing. How the use of the word thing became a thing, I'll never know. But I digress. The media should be accountable. Your argument saying it would be too much of a hassle so why bother? And because you're on your mobile phone it would be too much of a hassle for you. So why are you even posting here? If you have something to say then please back it up. Don't just throw Fox's, or anybody else's for that matter, name out there and trash it unless you can prove your allegation.

Thank you.

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed I did not admit that. I simply said that I did not have the time to research that. And if you had read more of my posts you would have realized I was not just using FOX. So clearly I now know what side you are on. The right.....me I land in the middle. I actually do watch FOX and all the other MSM so that I can get both sides of a story then do my research and get to what I believe is the truth. But thank you for thinking about me.......

watching the MSM at all is ridiculous. None of them have any credibility so why would you give them a minute of your time if you had some?

Honest question.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

It was the perfect setup for a correction with the charts on new month after three large daily increases in prices.
So many potential factors, I doubt many influential investors were following the Flynn story.
Day traders tend to see this more like an aviation dog fight, if the Russian MIG Fulcrums outnumber your F16's three to one its time to drop tanks and make a run for it.

so this little "mistake" actually cost the 1%'ers
does this mean rich democrats are angry at the MSM now

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

originally posted by: intrptr

News casters sit in a closed set studio reading TelePrompTer lines to camera lenses, they have no idea the reaction of the population to their lies. They speak in a vacuum.

Yeah no doubt. That puts the heat on corp, not the talking head.

Now, if we can just unplug all the other Matrix bathtubs.

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
a reply to: intrptr

Because the mainstream media wants to control the news content by inserting their own biased messages.

I don't think the talking heads write the copy anymore than the President writes his speeches.

Besides, to their chagrin, he deviates.

a reply to: gernblan That is a very good question. And I have a answer lol. Sometimes my shows aren't on and I already took care of my chickens and garden and went to see my mom. So I get bored and flip through the news stations. I do that because well I get bored and I like to see what kind of crap people are being fed on both sides. That is my honest answer.



:edit: But mostly when that happens I am on ATS or playing a game on my pc:

a reply to: gernblan I have backed up what I said. Why are you so upset that I used FOX? If I had used CNN I don't think you would have responded. Maybe...just maybe I used that as a trigger lol.

a reply to: WeRpeons

You may of read into that post, more than a tad.
It is obvious to any adult paying attention concerted efforts are put forth in order to steer public perception. A free and unfettered press is indeed important particularly as a check and balance to a government as well as to business etc...however when ownership of global reaching press is privately owned, often times by non citizens of (in this case) the United States...all kinds of problems begin to rear their head.

My statements have nothing to do with your or anyone's love, or hate of the President. The press doesn't tell the truth, or perhaps the entire truth often enough...Mr. Ross last week sound familiar??? How about ol Brian Williams? My comment was meant half tongue in cheek before...but since ya got worked up I thought I would at least acknowledge my having read your lengthy response.

originally posted by: DBCowboy


Perhaps if we held the media to ANY form of accountability, the media might start providing facts.

What, apart from market forces?

If you have some spare time, research the way Rupert "Fox" Murdoch flips left when public opinion goes left. Start with the Today newspaper in the mid 90s.

originally posted by: BlueJacket

It is obvious to any adult paying attention concerted efforts are put forth in order to steer public perception. A free and unfettered press is indeed important particularly as a check and balance to a government as well as to business etc...however when ownership of global reaching press is privately owned, often times by non citizens of (in this case) the United States...all kinds of problems begin to rear their head.

Sounds like you are advocating state socialist intervention to a free market.

Most of you know that the vast majority of trades are automated nowadays. Don't you?