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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Strictly: Drilling II -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: habitrail who wrote (28929)	3/1/2003 8:33:33 PM
From: grusum	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36161

<<The one thing that’s missing from all of your “sources” is a credible source… you know, something like Reuters, Associated Press, NBC, ABC, CBS or FOX.>> HT: You know, the "credible news sources" you mention told people to go Clown long on Internet stox through the 90's, are still telling people to hold now. They never broke any news on ENRN until the lock was in and J6P was left holding the bag. G: you know the difference between reporting factual events and having clown touts like Abby Cohen on their financial shows don’t you? One is verifiable and the other gives (bad) investment advice. i don't listen to or take the advice of any tout. ------------------------------ <<It would have been a news coup for the first one to break the story>> HT: Why?? What News Coup??? Broadcasters have effective monopoly on nations eyeballs, ears. If a small fry breaks news, the big media just shout it louder and farther. They are the ones that make the real money, whatever they say. They don't give credit unless they are looking to pin the blame on someone in case the story is a risk. Mainstream media will not take risks on stories, true or not. G: i think you’re in the fantasy area now that Slider was describing. How did they manage to cover up that US forces set fire to the oil fields? You’re talking about a lot of soldiers that have to keep quiet. How did they manage that? ------------------------------------------- <<they would have lost all credibility>> HT: By credibility you mean popularity. Those news sources you list are not in the news biz they are in the entertainment biz. Do not expect them to say anything that people don't want to hear. Also, they are a business, they do not do it for free, they have conflicts of interest, don't expect them to say the truth if that is going to lose them money. They al say the same thing, they all have their segments line up, even their commercials are lined up. The mainstream media has no credibility because they have a proven record of zero integrity. The same cannot be said of alternate news sources as they have either not proven anything one way or another, or have already proven their integrity. G: Yes, they are a business. A business that relies on credibility to survive. If people don’t trust the facts that they report, people will simply switch to a service that they believe in and the one without credibility won’t survive. I trust the majors services to get the facts right and then interpret them wrong. I never take their interpretation, only the facts. And sure they get facts wrong on occasion. But on those rare occasions they try to correct it as soon as possible. That makes them credible to ME. It is only ‘their interpretation’ that i don’t trust.