WH, right back at ya - nice synopsis <g> CNET right now has a really funny top/index page. What's wrong with this picture?:
"Nasdaq to monitor stock chat sites
The Nasdaq will keep an eye on free-flying
sensitive financial data online in an effort to curb the
spread of erroneous information.
September 5, 6:45 p.m. PT in Business
CompuServe up on new rumors
The online service's stock rises nearly 5 percent
after new rumors surface of an imminent buyout,
with WorldCom emerging as a leading candidate.
September 5, 6:10 p.m. PT in The Net"
and of course, this link will probably be outdated fairly soon, but it's
news.com
Great. In the tease under the headline the "editor" uses the term "an effort to curb the spread of erroneous information" and then DIRECTLY UNDER IT...
"Compuserve up on new rumors"?
So running a headline like that, basically a headline which reports the existence of a rumor is okay,?
news.com
And when you get to the article, it cites a Bloomberg report which gives the actual price of the transaction? Isn't that sensitive financial data of a non-public nature? So where did Bloomberg pick this info up?
Obviously, a journalist can't reveal a source (and I'm not sure what the law actually says, but it's the practice), so given that fact, isn't there the possiblity for "market manipulation" by an anonymous source in these types of instances, reporting on the existence of a rumor? And in a way, aren't those situations even more dangerous, because now there's some sort of halo of "legitimacy" if enough news orgs. pick it up?
Look, I like CNET. I think it's great. I read it almost everyday, and I find it an incredibly useful source of info. But I think on this one, in terms of the headline stack, the applicable term may be "doctor, heal thyself."
Good trading,
Tom |
