alt Hacker News> 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."
Replies
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.
Once you start seeing all the "both sides" and "sanewashing" you can't unsee it. And they lean on both so hard.
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
Thank you. I was going to simply comment "Suspicions"!?!
… but you've explained it more thoroughly.
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)