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.

Pastimes : CNBC -- critique. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: kvkkc1 who wrote (10257)	3/30/2002 10:55:30 AM
From: Michael Grosz	Respond to of 17683

We've been over this forever, but please acknowledge the complexity of this. 1) If a rumor EXISTS, it is a FACT to the reporter, whether the rumor is true or false. 2) If a rumor EXISTS and is TRUE, then it is not a rumor, but actually news, and the reporter has an obligation to treat it is such. 3) If a rumor EXISTS and is FALSE, then the reporter may cover the rumor, but must explicitly state that it is NOT TRUE, and provide supporting data. 4) If a rumor does NOT EXIST, no one knows about it, so no one will report it. Two, 3, and 4 are undeniable. What we argue about are the reporters obligations under 1.

To: kvkkc1 who wrote (10257)	3/31/2002 10:43:27 PM
From: Toby Zidle	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17683

You don't subscribe to my thought process. I don't understand your logic. Looks like a standoff here to me. In one posting, you want "someone who can be more objective and willing to pass rumors." In a different posting, you want to prosecute those who fulfill you wish for willingness to pass rumors. "If rumors are moving markets, the spreaders should be prosecuted" Nowhere in those postings did you distinguish false rumors from true (an afterthought in your posting #10268). My thought process (which you don't subscribe to) calls your two postings a contradiction. I thought the comments by Michael Grosz (#10269) and Ted David (#10270) very illuminating.