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 (28934)	3/1/2003 10:56:17 PM
From: grusum	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36161

Off Topic<<It is only ‘their interpretation’ that i don’t trust. >> HT: The interpretation starts with a selective reporting of "facts" which is justified by copping any number of excuses, like "there is not enough time to report everything", or "that topic is too advanced for our readers". G: What you seem to be saying is that in a world of instant communication, there is enough time for reporters to filter the facts they ‘want’ to report, clear it with their news agency and then conspire with the other news agencies to make sure that they all get their stories straight. Right? Because if they weren’t conspiring to get their stories straight, they’d obviously be reporting substantially different stories for the same event. ---------------------------- G: <<I trust the majors services to get the facts right>> HT: Have you ever noticed how when the news talks about something in your field of expertise they get it wrong, but when they talk about stuff you don't know a lot about, they sound fine? G: i hate to sound like a broken record but, yes, i agree they get it wrong. But i don’t believe they get the ‘facts’ wrong very often. Just the conclusions that they often draw from them. ---------------------------------------------- G: <<you know the difference between reporting factual events and clown touts>> HT: Yes the difference is that I can identify the clown touts because I watch the markets and can get a second opinion. With all that so-called "factual" reporting on places and people and things I don't know, I cannot disprove it, although I always suspect." G: Sure, i agree that it is wise to have an open mind to the possibility that the facts could be reported wrong, especially early in a story. But that is a far cry from making a leap of faith to believe something that is incredulous when it gets reported on something like “whatreallyhappened.com”. ------------------------------- G:<<i think you’re in the fantasy area [Re. US forces oil fires]>> HT: I do not necessarily believe in the oil fires story specifically ( I said as much when I posted it). What I do believe is that you cannot prove it's invalidity by saying, "if it were true the mainstream media would have picked it up." G: Nothing is 100% certain imo, not even the statement “i am”. We are always dealing with degrees of probability. The probability is very low that the major news services would not have picked up the story that US forces started those oil well fires, if it were true. The probability is even lower that the powers that be could have kept such a giant conspiracy quiet. It is not totally impossible, but it is very, very unlikely. And i do accept that you don’t believe the oil fire ‘conspiracy’ either. I’m just using it to make a point. -------------------------------------- G: <<A business that relies on credibility to survive>> HT: It is an entertainment business. They don't care about credibility, only about popularity, trust them at your peril. G: I agree that news anchors are in a popularity contest. And the news stations themselves do compete for our eyes and ears with frivolous stories. But the reporter, especially for the wires like AP and Reuters, is a different animal. Those reporters would take great umbrage at being accused of pandering to special interests or public fancies. Many risk their lives just to bring us the facts.