It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Pre-Election News Headline Manipulation?

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 12 2007 @ 08:35 AM
There more signs of intense efforts to manipulate financial news headlines, leading into election season. As many will recall, the election season of 2000 was dominated by dire headlines that greatly exaggerated negative aspects of financial market conditions. At the time, the economy was at the peak of a bubble from rampant dot-com and Y2K technology spending. Now, certainly, a correction was due... but many contemporary business analysts look back at that period and blame the early intensity of the recession on improperly exaggerated headlines, and gloomy or downright ominous financial rhetoric from the republicans.

Well, it's happening again.

Let's take this story from yesterday:

Greenspan: Recession Less Likely
Former U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan told a business seminar Friday that the odds are two to one in favor of the U.S. avoiding a recession,

Please visit the link provided for the complete story. carried the Associated Press article that clearly indicates Greenspan is not predicting a recession. They also comment that Greenspan has been indicating a two-thirds chance of avoiding a recession for several months.

Enter The Drudge Report

And it links to this story from the Guardian (and the majority of "Mainstream" sources echo this tone)...

With this tidbit buried deep into the article...

We've seen numerous stories of market sell-offs and investor panic from headlines like this (many rely on shortened or headline-only feeds into their Blackberries).

Here we go again folks.

posted on May, 12 2007 @ 11:48 AM
That certainly jibes with what I've been seeing. There is a definite manipulation of the Greenspan report or comments rather, and not for the better either.

The question is, IMHO, who is the direct beneficiary of this attempt to panic investors? To be honest, I'm not knowledgeable enough to venture anything resembling an accurate guess as to who might benefit the most. I know a lot of people are going to accuse the GOP, and an equal number are going to accuse the Dems., but is it truely that simple? I'm thinking not. But again, I don't have enough knowledge in this area to know...

posted on May, 12 2007 @ 03:23 PM
Well its a well established plan that goes through real estate first.
They gave awa fake money now they are going to take it back with the interests this time they don't want printed money they want to own material things.
They own the gold now they will own the real estate and everything else.
They want to destroy the middle class and they want the people in debt forever.

posted on May, 12 2007 @ 05:05 PM
Council on Foreign Relations on U.S. Dollar: “An Absurdity… Supported Only by Faith”
So if the CFR says it... it's real that the economy is gonna blow and it's the plan. Why? To merge Mexico, US and Canada and use the Amero.

True or not, the biggest factor in the economy is EMOTIONS.

[edit on 12-5-2007 by Vitchilo]

posted on May, 12 2007 @ 07:00 PM
The best way to prevent any monetary loss in a sell-off is to simply not sell one's stock. I'm not planning to sell mine in the event that a mass sell-off occurs. In fact, the best way to profit from such an event is to buy stock like crazy when something like that happens, if at all possible.

Again, you won't lose anything if you don't sell it. The safest investment is one that stays put for the long term.


posted on May, 12 2007 @ 07:35 PM
Wow! I've heard of spin before, but that's more like, twist. Greenspan say's x, the pundits report z. Greenspan doesn't even hold a position on the Fed. any more! It seems like they're trying to pull on his name recognition. Dodgy. I guess we'll see more of this in the months that come :groan:

good catch, S.O.

If ever there has been a time for my sig, it's now.

It's a pity he's not named Alan Gus. Then they could write such gems as
"Gloomy Gus declares. . "

posted on May, 13 2007 @ 06:14 AM
Well its obviously geared to panic not only the investor, but anyone holding a job as well. The general perception is that the republicans BOOST the economy by spending, thereby keeping the Titanic afloat. Spending on stuff like war, peacekeeping and other fun stuff like that.

[edit on 13-5-2007 by greatlakes]

posted on May, 13 2007 @ 08:37 AM
The scary thing, as Jim Kramer has attested to several times, is that market manipulation is still relatively easy to accomplish. You just need the right people in the right place, and understand what people are going to hear when you tell them things. The worst part is that "the Feds aren't smart enough to figure this stuff out" so there really isn't any protection against it.

I believe in Capitalism, but admit that there are many many dark sides to it. Market manipulation is one of those dark sides. When people cease being people, and become simply numbers in a formula, that is when things have become most dangerous.

posted on May, 13 2007 @ 11:38 AM
sorry but the link you used is a second hand account of what greenspan supposedly said the article specifically mentions this

"'The odds are 2-to-1 that we won't have recession,"' he said, according to the person

and the title of that article "recession less likely" that is misinformation

less likely according to what? accoridng to what change in odds?

THE spin is he predicts the same chance of resession within this year as he has been, but the misleading article takes that to say well recession is less likely than non recession because it is 2:1.

greenspan says the chance of recession THIS year is one in three. a 33 percent chance in recession WITHIN the year. which is 66.6 : 33.3 or 2 to 1 chance of recession not happenng within the year

wow that sounds great, so are we to beleive it is GOOD NEWS that the chance of recession (pay attention to the time frame) WITHIN THE YEAR is "ONLY" 33 percent

when in past years the chance has been much lower (within the year)

ah let's ask him the chance of recession within the next 3 years shall we? i don't think we will answer that (wonder why?)

so let me get this straight (with all due respect)

u say that with the election year coming economist are spinning news, when this is infact what you are doing in this very post.

you have "recession less likely" as one of your "accurate reports" when the misinformation LEADS one to beleive that greenspan has changed his stance and said recession has a smaller chance of happening than previous when in fact, it is simply misleading and an abstractioin of language. i.e 2:1 of not happening is 66.6%: 33.3 which equals 1/3 which means simply there is 66.6 chance of no recession within this year.

wow talk about a glass half full type of guy ??

[edit on 13-5-2007 by cpdaman]

posted on May, 13 2007 @ 11:46 AM
Good stuff cpdaman. That part of it did a complete fly by over my head. Thanks for pointing that out.

posted on May, 13 2007 @ 05:35 PM

Originally posted by cpdaman
THE spin is he predicts the same chance of resession within this year as he has been,

Indeed. And some responsible sources were reporting this as the leading "non-news" of the day.

but the misleading article takes that to say well recession is less likely than non recession because it is 2:1.

How so? Yes... a "one in three" change of recession means, recession is less likely than not.

wow that sounds great, so are we to beleive it is GOOD NEWS that the chance of recession (pay attention to the time frame) WITHIN THE YEAR is "ONLY" 33 percent

It's not "gloomy" as the inaccurate headlines would like to portray.

top topics


log in