Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by hef19898 1032 days ago
Because Business Insider is such a great source. And no, I do not believe the ultra rich employ private inteligence serices preparing morning briefings for them.

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.
1 comments
CamperBob2 1032 days ago
Because Business Insider is such a great source.

Whatever. Read the article. It contains direct quotes.

link
hef19898 1032 days ago
Accusations of market manipulation are better backed up by strong evidence, because that is actually a fellony.
link
CamperBob2 1032 days ago
Illegal or not, it's defamatory if untrue. I assume that Bloomberg would sue for libel if the quote from their reporter were fabricated.

(Read the quote from the reporter carefully: the market isn't what's being manipulated. The news is... and by extension, the reader. The reader is who does the market-moving.)

link
hef19898 1032 days ago
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.
link
CamperBob2 1032 days ago
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?

link