Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The insider trading suspicions looming over Trump's presidency

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 170 posts

Re: The insider trading suspicions looming over Trump's presidency

#131

Post by librasteve »

librasteve wrote: post #130
sometimes_all wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the BBC is required by its charter to provide a “balanced” view I find this hilarious; the BBC has rarely provided a balanced view on many things. Indians (at almost every point in the political and social spectrum) will easily notice the bias and smug holier-than-thou attitude on India-specific news/opinion.

well yes, balanced as in the net Islington dinner party

as a brit that has lived in the US and EU and visited many places (not yet India) … I can well imagine that the BBC looks like the British imposing our views with a wrapper of intolerable righteousness … please allow me to apologise on behalf of all us licence payers

Re: The insider trading suspicions looming over Trump's presidency

#132

Post by jyounker »

nailer wrote: post #65
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect in the aftermath of this administration, the power of the President as a whole is going to be massively stripped back.

That might work out well for the Republicans - "rule by executive order" started under the Obama administration.

I suggest that you actually look up the numbers for other presidents: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/data/executive-or...

Re: The insider trading suspicions looming over Trump's presidency

#133

Post by sometimes_all »

librasteve wrote: post #131
librasteve wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

well yes, balanced as in the net Islington dinner party

as a brit that has lived in the US and EU and visited many places (not yet India) … I can well imagine that the BBC looks like the British imposing our views with a wrapper of intolerable righteousness … please allow me to apologise on behalf of all us licence payers

Why would you have to apologize? If I had to apologize on behalf of all the drivel Indian newspapers write, it'd take me more than a month.

It's pretty clear that newspapers around the world are now decoupling from the actual wishes and necessities of their subscribers/licensees. The latter are not to blame, especially when they are willing to pay for their news.

Plus I don't have to read the BBC if I don't want to, but media literacy, combing through nonsense and finding the actual necessary bits, etc. are important, and that needs me to read news from different sources and countries, including that of BBC sometimes.

Re: The insider trading suspicions looming over Trump's presidency

#134

Post by Terr_ »

N_Lens wrote: post #2

"Suspicions" doing a lot of heavy lifting here.

In the sense of extreme understatement, yes, which is amusing since the "heavy lifting" is the other way around.

Much like "There are looming suspicions over the effectiveness of colored quartz and homeopathic water." [0]

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMGIbOGu8q0

Re: The insider trading suspicions looming over Trump's presidency

#135

Post by imiric »

testfoobar wrote: post #121
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand this response. Certainly they shouldn't say "Mr. John Smith is guilty" if a court hasn't found that. But there's nobody in particular being named here, just clear evidence that someone must have done it. If the police find a dead body, should newspapers pretend the victim might be alive somehow to avoid allocating criminal responsibility for murder?

By researching, writing and publishing this article both the reporter and the news org believe there is significant public value in publishing this information. But it is a higher and more restricted standard to say a crime has been committed. Journalists can uncover and publish evidence that a crime has been likely committed. Journalists cannot make a legal determination that a crime has or has not been committed. T…

That's ludicrous hair splitting.

If I have evidence that a crime has been committed based on my layperson understanding of the law, I will surely inform others before the case is even brought to courts. Journalists can and should do the same.

By your logic, reporting based on evidence provided by whistleblowers shouldn't exist. Things like Watergate would likely have never happened.

Journalists shouldn't accuse anyone of committing a crime, and goes without saying that facts shouldn't be fabricated, which is unfortunately common nowadays as well, but they should report events that happened based on the information they have, whether these happen to be related to crimes or not.

Re: The insider trading suspicions looming over Trump's presidency

#137

Post by mktk1001 »

yanhangyhy wrote: post #119

Can anyone tell me why a great democratic system is unable to prevent this kind of problem? Even when it happens, there seem to be no effective measures to deal with it.

When all three branches of government fall under the grip of corrupt officials and their elected enablers, the checks and balances meant to safeguard the republic become little more than decorative machinery.

Re: The insider trading suspicions looming over Trump's presidency

#139

Post by ndsipa_pomu »

imiric wrote: post #135
testfoobar wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By researching, writing and publishing this article both the reporter and the news org believe there is significant public value in publishing this information. But it is a higher and more restricted standard to say a crime has been committed. Journalists can uncover and publish evidence that a crime has been likely committed. Journalists cannot make a legal determination that a crime has or has not been committed. T…

That's ludicrous hair splitting. If I have evidence that a crime has been committed based on my layperson understanding of the law, I will surely inform others before the case is even brought to courts. Journalists can and should do the same. By your logic, reporting based on evidence provided by whistleblowers shouldn't exist. Things like Watergate would likely have never happened. Journalists shouldn't accuse anyon…

Reporting based on evidence is definitely allowed in the UK. Any accusation of libel/slander could be defended by producing the evidence and thus proving that the statements were true.

Going beyond the evidence and jumping straight to the crime is where the situation becomes tricky as the defense would be unlikely to prove beyond doubt that the accused person was actually guilty - that's why terms are used such as "alleged child abuser". Alternatively, the evidence/facts can be reported e.g. "Trump featured in many victim reports as an abuser".

Re: The insider trading suspicions looming over Trump's presidency

#140

Post by GJim »

librasteve wrote: post #114
idle_zealot wrote: post #62

> Some analysts say it bears the hallmarks of illegal insider trading, whereby bets are made by people based on information that is not available to the general public. > Others say the picture is more complicated and that some traders have become more adept at anticipating the president's interventions. This and the title are journalistic malpractice. This is an article designed to report on obvious insider trading,…

yeah, and Trump will no doubt retort that this is BBC fake news in the light of their legal battle over (improperly) editing his speech the BBC is required by its charter to provide a “balanced” view and this often result in unbearable smugness and vaulting to “we are the ultimate arbiters of truth” this is a big pity, because the alternative is Fox News / GB News

>the BBC is required by its charter to provide a “balanced” view

You say this like it is a bad thing.

The BBC journalism is rather good and quite rightly seeks to be as impartial as possible. To compare the likes of Rupert Murdoch as a credible alternative to be BBC (or indeed, any news media which lacks a 'fairness doctrine') is simply idiotic.

Post reply on HN