More apt would be pump and dump schemes ala Stratton oakmont —which is illegal.
News orgs should be held to account when they do not partake in due diligence.
They used to require multiple sources before embarking on exposes and when making inflammatory accusations. Today quoting an anonymous source on Twitter is sufficient basis for articles on policy, society, etc.
It’s only an insult if you deny amorality. They are not pumping and dumping because they have no affinity towards seeing one stock go up. They will pick any stock that has price action.
Let’s put it this way, if the US electorate was shrewd enough to have found Trump boring, it’s would not have been a stock they would have rode. They rode it because they could.
The Steel Dossier was them riding the liberal Trump backlash movement. They just don’t give a shit, they are surfing our waves.
One only has to look at who and what owns these massive media conglomerates to realize these companies don't have our best interests at heart. They're all owned by massive, money-making individuals/corporations who just exist to make more money and to keep your eyeballs engaged. They have no "duty" to serve only the facts.
Why would we serve just the facts and spend time doing investigative journalism, when we could just run with "anonymous sources" and treat _those_ sources as fact!
If only the ones screaming "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" were to slightly change their mantra to "freedom of the press doesn't mean freedom from consequences!"
More apt would be pump and dump schemes ala Stratton oakmont —which is illegal.
News orgs should be held to account when they do not partake in due diligence.
They used to require multiple sources before embarking on exposes and when making inflammatory accusations. Today quoting an anonymous source on Twitter is sufficient basis for articles on policy, society, etc.