Shhh! The trouble with "Rumornet".
I know I'm not the first person to think about this, but I will go on record as being the first to post this thought.
Pray tell, what's to prevent an aliased rumor-monger from posting rumors solely to pump up the price of a stock he holds dearly and lovingly.
Since said rumor can be neither substantiated or unsubstantiated, there's no way to know if the informant has honorable intentions or no. For this case, I suppose "honorable" would mean spreading unverifiable information for the angelic purpose of helping everyone "not in the know".
Comparing Rumornet to more high-profile predecessors on the mass media, one minor detail is overlooked: those reporters of rumors actually know their informants, have a history with them, that creates a trust. This trust in turn helps the reporter to maintain a semblance of veracity with his audiance. And even then, he tells his audiance that it's not a good idea to trade a stock on rumors alone. And even then, he takes considerable heat from the press and investor watch groups, who question his intentions.
I reserve the right to be skeptical.
But keep this under your hat.
X |
