Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : America On-Line (AOL) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (27558)	8/1/1999 1:26:00 AM
From: Dr. David Gleitman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 41369

To all on this thread: There are several questions which need to be asked with regard to the rumor of the negative story on AOL in barons. First, while I did not hear/read the actual comments by CNBC, doesn't CNBC have a moral (?) /legal/fiduciary/journalistic responsibility to check out/verify the story before submitting it for public consumption? After all, it can be just as easily stated that there are rumors (which may be unsubstantiated or not) that Joe Kernen is a pedofile. Whether or not this is true or not (and I for one and not going to deny or verify the above statement), the damage is already done even with all the caveats provided with the statement. What criteria does CNBC utilize to verify a story prior to broadcasting. Even if makes a preemptive statement indicating that it is "rumor", that does not absolve them from their responsibility. After all this rumor of Joe Kernin being a pedofile is also a rumor which has not been substantiated as of yet. Because of prior experiences with negative articles being published by Barons and knowing what the potential damage can be to the valuation of any stock that Barons targets in a negative article, CNBC should know better than to even entertain such a rumor if they don't have any verifiable form of corroboration. I believe that their standards for verification should be made public knowledge, otherwise we would be left with nothing more than a cheesy gossip column. CNBC should recognize their moral, fiduciary and legal obligations to their public viewers. The next issue involves Barons. What is Barons responsibility to responding to rumors that may not be substantiated. Our they supposed to respond to these rumors as they come public (now don't tell me that there is no one at Barons does not aware of these rumors being stated on CNBC while the market was open for trading). Does Barons have a responsibility to respond to these alleged rumors as soon as possible or our they allowed to have the luxury/leeway to wait till aftermarket hours to squash the rumor after the damage has been done. It is not enough for Barons indicate that they cannot comment on an article that was not released. That is nothing more than a cop out which avoids the issue of journalistic responsibility. The publishers of Barons must realize that they do wield the power to make stocks rise or fall based upon the content of their articles or even the alleged content of a future article. By possessing this power, they must take responsibility not only for their comments but their lack of comment in a timely fashion. In either case, it can cause damage and losses for the investing public. I believe that Barons must be accountable for their policies regarding commenting on the veracity of in the upcoming article that is rumored to be published. I have found in observing the behavior of AOL over the past year (well actually the past nine-months) that this stock appears to be manipulated by the powers that be in strange and unusual ways. I recall one day when AOL was placed on the S&P. 500, there was a sudden drop of approximately 10 -- 20 points within a five-minute. That appeared to have reversed itself within that same five-minute period. I remember comments were being made on this thread that it was large managers than wanted to shake loose those shares that had stop loss orders placed on it. A person could have gone to the bathroom for five minutes with a stop loss order and return seeing the stock at the same value of the only difference being that they lost possession of those shares. I find it rather interesting that suddenly after-hours the stock closes up two points above their close with no appreciable gradation in the change of value. It simply went from 95 1/8 to 97 1/8. Your comments would be appreciated and welcomed. Good luck to all, David PostScript: It should be stated to the record that I have no knowledge of Joe Kernin being a pedofile. This is just used as an example of how misinformation can be utilized to cause damage. The word "rumor or unsubstantiated" does not absolve the network of its responsibility, nor does it excuse their actions by indicating that they are just reporting it. Just throwing in my two cents.