Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 4th Oct 2008 21:12 UTC
If you're looking for a party, Wall Street probably isn't the place you're going to find one. And to make matters worse, there are apparently people out there who are wilfully trying to make the life of the people on Wall Street (and subsequently, the rest of the world) even harder. By making up fake stories. And publish them on CNN's Digg - iReport.com. Some individual had posted a fake report last Friday, claiming Steve Jobs had suffered from a heart attack and was rushed into the hospital. As a result, Apple's stock made a 10% nosedive.
Thread beginning with comment 332396
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by lurch_mojoff
by null_pointer_us on Sat 4th Oct 2008 23:33
in reply to "Comment by lurch_mojoff"
Member since:2005-08-19
Thom, I too vehemently disagree, but with you. Real journalists do not publish anything they have not confirmed with at least two independent sources, or anyway that's how it used to be.
The primary responsibility of any news organization is to present the facts of the situation in a way that is (a) independently verifiable and (b) leaves consumers with an accurate understanding of the situation.
By this standard, major news networks publish crap everyday, and some do little else. News producers and consumers really don't care about the facts so much as the slant. It's way too motivated by personal agenda: news producers often create stories based on fluff to satisfy personal grudges or delusions, and news consumers accept/reject reporting for similar reasons. Reality comes in second. And ethics? Heh, sure.
News consumers are just as bad. Often they'll take something at face value just because their favorite news organization stated it as fact. Nevermind the other major news organizations are simultaneously exposing it as lies, or discounting it based on nonexistent reports by untrustworthy sources.
News consumers don't care about transparency. They don't want to verify anything they read. What they want, is information that tells them what they want to hear -- usually one of two things: (a) their agenda is advancing because it is good, smart, modern, whatever; or (b) their agenda is being blocked because their enemies are bad, ignorant, outdated, whatever. As long as they can find some news organization that gives the right slant, presto! the desired slant becomes fact.
In short, the problem is that news organizations publish what they want people to hear while news consumers select news organizations based on what they want to hear. It doesn't really matter what side of the issue you happen to be on (if any).
And yes, there are honest people in the world...I'm generalizing.
You don't get a free pass because you've added at the end of your report a disclaimer that you're waiting for a statement from Apple and updates will be posted as they come.
Ever watched cable news? The entire thing is a work-in-progress, with corrections slipping through the cracks because the next big partially-understood story has broken. Anonymous sources are also quite common.
RE[2]: Comment by lurch_mojoff
by tyrione on Sun 5th Oct 2008 22:43
in reply to "RE: Comment by lurch_mojoff"
Member since:2005-11-21
The primary responsibility of any news organization is to present the facts of the situation in a way that is (a) independently verifiable and (b) leaves consumers with an accurate understanding of the situation.
So that explains the lovefest for Obama? Or the former lovefest for Bush on FOX?
The News media betrayed the notion of Free Press decades ago.
RE: Comment by lurch_mojoff
by No it isnt on Sun 5th Oct 2008 10:09
in reply to "Comment by lurch_mojoff"
Member since:2005-11-14
Thom, I too vehemently disagree, but with you. Real journalists do not publish anything they have not confirmed with at least two independent sources, or anyway that's how it used to be.
You wish. Since the internet came along, journalism is mostly about cutting & pasting from other news sources. Just go to news.google.com and look at a few versions of some smaller story. The biggest difference is usually the journalist's name.
RE[2]: Comment by lurch_mojoff
by hobgoblin on Sun 5th Oct 2008 14:13
in reply to "RE: Comment by lurch_mojoff"
Member since:2005-07-06
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2007-05-12
Thom, I too vehemently disagree, but with you. Real journalists do not publish anything they have not confirmed with at least two independent sources, or anyway that's how it used to be. You don't get a free pass because you've added at the end of your report a disclaimer that you're waiting for a statement from Apple and updates will be posted as they come. The story being unconfirmed doesn't mean it is false and many people, especially in these economically turbulent times, will choose to act on the worst case scenario and try to beat the rest of the market to the punch. I consider Silicon Alley Insider a fairly serious web publication and I think they should have known better.
As for what will happen with Apple and their stock when Steve Jobs really dies, well, the most likely scenario goes something like this: apple's stock takes a hit, likely more than 10%; the company's well rehearsed succession plan kicks in; at the end of the next quarter they announce that the profit and the growth are just as healthy as ever and the stock recovers a bit; in six months Apple release some new fancy-shmancy products and again report healthy growth and profit and the stock recovers more, probably completely; in a year no investor remembers or cares about Steve and the stock is once again valued based on a mix of rational and irrational indicators.