4 ms·

You are purposefully misquoting Andrew Ross Sorkin. The "from what I understand" refers to the time Melvin Capital closed their position, not the overall fact t

You are purposefully misquoting Andrew Ross Sorkin. The "from what I understand" refers to the time Melvin Capital closed their position, not the overall fact that their short interest is closed. The full quote from Sorkin's segment, ~40 seconds into the video: "Melvin Capital is now out of the stock. They got out of the stock, from what I understand, yesterday afternoon." (https://twitter.com/cnbc/status/1354406938319216640 https://twitter.com/cnbc/status/1354406938319216640). It could not be more clear -- "from what I understand" refers to the precise timing and not the overall fact. > The claim that Melvin closed their position is something of a game of "telephone" in that it was a CNBC anchor that claimed that "from what I understand" Melvin Capital is out of the stock, after he talked to the CEO (off camera). That's not a game of telephone, that's quoting a direct source. Sorkin talked to the CEO of Melvin Capital right before he went on air and then immediately reported it. > just a journalist claiming a source said something And it's not "some CNBC anchor," it's a well known journalist (Andrew Ross Sorkin) with a reputation at stake. > All of the other stories about the claim simply state "according to CNBC". Because CNBC got the scoop. It's journalistic etiquette! > no recording of the conversation, just a journalist claiming a source said something Every single article published in any newspaper ever is a journalist claiming a source said something. > Melvin themselves have not (as far as I can see) issued any kind of statement, written or otherwise, that clearly states they have zero position on GME any more. The CEO of Melvin Capital calling a prominent CNBC journalist counts as a statement, if you're willing to put aside your rabid paranoia for a few minutes and think critically instead of conspiratorially.

alasdair_ 6y ago
>That's not a game of telephone, that's quoting a direct source No, it's not. Not at all. A quote is where the actual words someone said are put forth verbatim. What we got was a summary of what was said and that's exactly my issue with the statement - summaries leave wiggle room for people to come back later and say "well, that's not exactly what I said". >Every single article published in any newspaper ever is a journalist claiming a source said something. Yes, and there are conventions to make it clear when the journalist is directly quoting a source (the use of quotation marks) and when the journalist is giving their own summary of what the source said.

alasdair_ 6y ago

>That's not a game of telephone, that's quoting a direct source No, it's not. Not at all. A quote is where the actual words someone said are put forth verbatim. What we got was a summary of what was said and that's exactly my issue with the statement - summaries leave wiggle room for people to come back later and say "well, that's not exactly what I said". >Every single article published in any newspaper ever is a journalist claiming a source said something. Yes, and there are conventions to make it clear when the journalist is directly quoting a source (the use of quotation marks) and when the journalist is giving their own summary of what the source said.