- Joined
- Dec 2, 2015
- Messages
- 16,568
- Reaction score
- 7,253
- Location
- California Caliphate
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
The Dow Jones average on Friday morning indeed plunged by 350 points after Ross incorrectly reported that former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn was going to testify that Trump, as a presidential candidate, directed Flynn to contact Russian officials, amid federal investigations into whether Moscow and the Trump campaign colluded in the race.
However, the Dow, a major stock market index, regained most of its early Friday loses and finished just 41 points down when the markets closed for business.
Trump urges investors who lost money after 'false' ABC, Brian Ross report to sue network | Fox News
This could get interesting. Most mutual funds and other traders use automated sell systems. This ABC bogus report certainly tripped a few sell thresholds, followed by quick re buys.
The end result? A bunch of people lost money, and a bunch of people made money, but reason was the irresponsible reporting fake news - I.E. jorrnalistic malpractice. The fact that ABC suspended the reporter hurts their case if they get sued.
Trump urges investors who lost money after 'false' ABC, Brian Ross report to sue network | Fox News
This could get interesting. Most mutual funds and other traders use automated sell systems. This ABC bogus report certainly tripped a few sell thresholds, followed by quick re buys.
The end result? A bunch of people lost money, and a bunch of people made money, but reason was the irresponsible reporting fake news - I.E. jorrnalistic malpractice. The fact that ABC suspended the reporter hurts their case if they get sued.
This is completely armchair lawyering here but wouldn't you have to prove intent to cause this specific financial harm in order to sue?
Otherwise wouldn't it be a 1st Amendment issue?
Also, shouldn't Trump be a bit more careful about saying things like this, especially when he's liable to eventually say something so stupid or dangerous it also has a similar affect on the Stock Market?
Trump urges investors who lost money after 'false' ABC, Brian Ross report to sue network | Fox News
This could get interesting. Most mutual funds and other traders use automated sell systems. This ABC bogus report certainly tripped a few sell thresholds, followed by quick re buys.
The end result? A bunch of people lost money, and a bunch of people made money, but reason was the irresponsible reporting fake news - I.E. jorrnalistic malpractice. The fact that ABC suspended the reporter hurts their case if they get sued.
This is completely armchair lawyering here but wouldn't you have to prove intent to cause this specific financial harm in order to sue?
Otherwise wouldn't it be a 1st Amendment issue?
Also, shouldn't Trump be a bit more careful about saying things like this, especially when he's liable to eventually say something so stupid or dangerous it also has a similar affect on the Stock Market?
Trump urges investors who lost money after 'false' ABC, Brian Ross report to sue network | Fox News
This could get interesting. Most mutual funds and other traders use automated sell systems. This ABC bogus report certainly tripped a few sell thresholds, followed by quick re buys.
The end result? A bunch of people lost money, and a bunch of people made money, but reason was the irresponsible reporting fake news - I.E. jorrnalistic malpractice. The fact that ABC suspended the reporter hurts their case if they get sued.
You pay for damages, if you have an accident with your car.
Immediately suspending Brian Ross was quick and decisive action on their part, as was publicly and repeatedly admitting their error. That's called holding one's reporters and newscasters to a high standard of conduct and professionalism.
That being said, how often has Fox News admitted error, much less suspended one of their senior people for getting the story wrong? I don't think they ever have...
...so that means that either Fox News has never been wrong, or that they simply don't hold their reporters and newscasters to a high standard of conduct and professionalism. Which one is it?
I think we’re fortunate it didn’t fall further than that. But as for suing? Well, Inwish them good luck. They would need plenty.
Immediately suspending Brian Ross was quick and decisive action on their part, as was publicly and repeatedly admitting their error. That's called holding one's reporters and newscasters to a high standard of conduct and professionalism.
That being said, how often has Fox News admitted error, much less suspended one of their senior people for getting the story wrong? I don't think they ever have...
...so that means that either Fox News has never been wrong, or that they simply don't hold their reporters and newscasters to a high standard of conduct and professionalism. Which one is it?
You pay for damages, if you have an accident with your car.
This is completely armchair lawyering here but wouldn't you have to prove intent to cause this specific financial harm in order to sue?
Otherwise wouldn't it be a 1st Amendment issue?
Also, shouldn't Trump be a bit more careful about saying things like this, especially when he's liable to eventually say something so stupid or dangerous it also has a similar affect on the Stock Market?
IT depends on what hey argue. I doubt a lawsuit would go. However they could prove negligence.
I think it would be a tough case.
They could prove lack of due diligence. But not the first time this has happened to ABC.
This is completely armchair lawyering here but wouldn't you have to prove intent to cause this specific financial harm in order to sue?
Otherwise wouldn't it be a 1st Amendment issue?
Also, shouldn't Trump be a bit more careful about saying things like this, especially when he's liable to eventually say something so stupid or dangerous it also has a similar affect on the Stock Market?
Nobody made anybody sell any stock.
So they drove their own "cars" into a wall.
So I'm not sure what the angle would be.
Not a first amendment issue.
They’d also have to prove the stock market falling a mere 350 points was a foreseeable consequence of his story.
But you are right, it won’t go anywhere. The MSM is under no obligation to tell the truth or even retract this story for that matter.
ABC caused real wealth to move by shooting off their mouth.
Again completely armchair lawyering here but through precedence you are making it one, because the courts would as Maggie pointed out be essentially saying you are liable for unforeseen financial consequences of your speech, seems to me that's a can of worms you wouldn't want to open.
Now if you say, for example as a government official, told a business partner you were going to announce an investigation into a certain company, or as a journalist breaking a story about a certain company knowing what that would do to its stock price and told your buddy to short, that's a clear cut case that's going to virtually instantly end up with jailed people.
You don't know that much about stocks do you?
Most stock traders are smart and have stop limits in place.
So if a stock drops below a certain point it automatically sells.
This drop caused a huge sell off to occur as stock prices dropped.
People that otherwise would have held ended up selling then having to buy back.
That cost them gen more money as brokerage firms charge people 2-10 dollars a trade.
Wall street is a casino.
Bet at your own risk.
Trump urges investors who lost money after 'false' ABC, Brian Ross report to sue network | Fox News
This could get interesting. Most mutual funds and other traders use automated sell systems. This ABC bogus report certainly tripped a few sell thresholds, followed by quick re buys.
The end result? A bunch of people lost money, and a bunch of people made money, but reason was the irresponsible reporting fake news - I.E. jorrnalistic malpractice. The fact that ABC suspended the reporter hurts their case if they get sued.
How often has CNN and MSNBC and NBC or any other major network. Must we continue playing whataboutism?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?