5 ms·

> 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

> 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, and the writer clearly knows and agrees that it's obvious, but goes out of their way to throw in concessions and a build a veil of neutrality. You are legally allowed to accuse public officials of crimes. You do not have to gesture at "looming suspicions." A neutral reporting of the facts would make such an accusation, and tie it into the broader pattern of criminality. But it's more important to perform neutrality than to be honest, so we get this garbage. "Mr President, would you please comment on the allegations that-" "Shut up, piggie."

davidw 6mo ago
Once you start seeing all the "both sides" and "sanewashing" you can't unsee it. And they lean on both so hard.
- red-iron-pine 6mo ago
  who is "they"?
  - davidw 6mo ago
    Corporate media.
dlenski 6mo ago
Thank you. I was going to simply comment "Suspicions"!?! … but you've explained it more thoroughly.
awakeasleep 6mo ago
It may be different in the UK. They have defamation laws that seem insane to a USA person. (Burden of proof on the speaker to prove what they said is true iirc)
- ruszki 6mo ago
  I never understood this. Basically every country, including the US, has libel and slander laws, and almost the same everywhere in the West. People were thrown to jail even in America for "a single tweet", the exact same way as in the UK. And for example, saying that you support violence in specific cases, like there is an ongoing riot, and you tweet "kill them all", that's not protected by any free speech laws in the world, not even the American, or any states' in America.
  - joecool1029 6mo ago
    You can actually tweet/write agreement with acts of violence and advocate for it in a general sense in the US. The legal standard is whether that speech is a threat to imminent violence (encouraging violence at a specific place and time): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio Furthermore, defamation/libel is not covered under criminal law, it’s considered a tort so it would be a civil suit. So no, not at all like the UK. EDIT: But yeah sure if you want to try to defend your point, start linking cases to support the claim.
    - amenhotep 6mo ago
      What on earth does defamation being a civil offense have to do with anything? It's a civil offense in the UK too, criminal defamation hasn't been a thing since 2010 and was barely a thing before then. If you want to confidently post how one thing is not at all like the other thing it might be a good idea to know the most basic facts about the other thing.
      - joecool1029 6mo ago
        Maybe re-read parent’s comment? They were saying there are laws against libel/slander in every country, US doesn’t have such laws that would throw you behind bars. I am confident in stating the UK has much weaker free speech laws and no constitution to base free speech protections on. FFS, this is the country a dude was arrested and fined for filming his dog doing a hitler salute. We have had a few cases not related to violence in the US but they usually end up overturned even when there’s a conviction (thinking of this guy as an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglass_Mackey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglass_Mackey )
testfoobar 6mo ago
Allegations of insider trading are not the same as convictions of insider trading. No publication should be in the business of allocating criminal responsibility in advance of legal proceedings. If a crime is suspected then it should be reported to the authorities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence
- SpicyLemonZest 6mo ago
  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?
  - testfoobar 6mo ago
    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. This is left for courts.
    - imiric 6mo ago
      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.
librasteve 6mo ago
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
- sometimes_all 6mo ago
  > 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.
  - librasteve 6mo ago
    well yes, balanced as in the net Islington dinner party
    - librasteve 6mo ago
      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
      - sometimes_all 6mo ago
        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.
imglorp 6mo ago
The term is sanewashing. None of this kleptocracy is normal, or sane, or acceptable.

davidw 6mo ago

Once you start seeing all the "both sides" and "sanewashing" you can't unsee it. And they lean on both so hard.

red-iron-pine 6mo ago
who is "they"?
- davidw 6mo ago
  Corporate media.

dlenski 6mo ago

Thank you. I was going to simply comment "Suspicions"!?! … but you've explained it more thoroughly.

awakeasleep 6mo ago

It may be different in the UK. They have defamation laws that seem insane to a USA person. (Burden of proof on the speaker to prove what they said is true iirc)

ruszki 6mo ago
I never understood this. Basically every country, including the US, has libel and slander laws, and almost the same everywhere in the West. People were thrown to jail even in America for "a single tweet", the exact same way as in the UK. And for example, saying that you support violence in specific cases, like there is an ongoing riot, and you tweet "kill them all", that's not protected by any free speech laws in the world, not even the American, or any states' in America.
- joecool1029 6mo ago
  You can actually tweet/write agreement with acts of violence and advocate for it in a general sense in the US. The legal standard is whether that speech is a threat to imminent violence (encouraging violence at a specific place and time): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio Furthermore, defamation/libel is not covered under criminal law, it’s considered a tort so it would be a civil suit. So no, not at all like the UK. EDIT: But yeah sure if you want to try to defend your point, start linking cases to support the claim.
  - amenhotep 6mo ago
    What on earth does defamation being a civil offense have to do with anything? It's a civil offense in the UK too, criminal defamation hasn't been a thing since 2010 and was barely a thing before then. If you want to confidently post how one thing is not at all like the other thing it might be a good idea to know the most basic facts about the other thing.
    - joecool1029 6mo ago
      Maybe re-read parent’s comment? They were saying there are laws against libel/slander in every country, US doesn’t have such laws that would throw you behind bars. I am confident in stating the UK has much weaker free speech laws and no constitution to base free speech protections on. FFS, this is the country a dude was arrested and fined for filming his dog doing a hitler salute. We have had a few cases not related to violence in the US but they usually end up overturned even when there’s a conviction (thinking of this guy as an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglass_Mackey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglass_Mackey )

testfoobar 6mo ago

Allegations of insider trading are not the same as convictions of insider trading. No publication should be in the business of allocating criminal responsibility in advance of legal proceedings. If a crime is suspected then it should be reported to the authorities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

SpicyLemonZest 6mo ago
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?
- testfoobar 6mo ago
  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. This is left for courts.
  - imiric 6mo ago
    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.

librasteve 6mo ago

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

sometimes_all 6mo ago
> 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.
- librasteve 6mo ago
  well yes, balanced as in the net Islington dinner party
  - librasteve 6mo ago
    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
    - sometimes_all 6mo ago
      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.

imglorp 6mo ago

The term is sanewashing. None of this kleptocracy is normal, or sane, or acceptable.