Trump urges investors who lost money after 'false' ABC, Brian Ross report to sue network

ludin said:

This proves you don't know anything about the stock market.

Click to expand...

Its more poker than dice, but you're still gambling.

Hoping you picked one that will go up in value.

You risk losing your stake, just like a casino.

What if...? said:

Its more poker than dice, but you're still gambling.

Hoping you picked one that will go up in value.

You risk losing your stake, just like a casino.

Click to expand...

Again you prove you no nothing. You should really just stop.
Warren Buffett says well you are wrong. So does any other investor worth his salt.

Glen Contrarian said:

CNN

NBC

MSNBC

Yes, Fox News did do a retraction...but what's interesting is how quickly CNN issued a retraction as compared to how long it took Fox to do so. But of course that's thinkprogress.org, which is a liberal site. Perhaps it would be better to read NPR's article on Fox News' aversion to retractions. Fox finally did retract the story, but here's how they handled the retraction:

“On May 16, a story was posted on the Fox News website on the investigation into the 2016 murder of DNC Staffer Seth Rich. The article was not initially subjected to the high degree of editorial scrutiny we require for all our reporting. Upon appropriate review, the article was found not to meet those standards and has since been removed,” Fox News said in a statement posted online.

The statement did not include an apology to Rich's family or any admission of regret.

Rich's family had specially demanded an apology. But a spokesperson for Rich’s family reacted to the Fox retraction by suggesting the family wanted to put the episode behind them and move on.

This, ma'am, is why it's wrong, a false equivalence to insinuate that every network is just as bad as the other.

Click to expand...

They are :shrug:

Trump Speaks the truth again

Jetboogieman said:

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?

Click to expand...

ludin said:

Not a first amendment issue. First amendment only pertains to government not private citizens.
It would be a hard case.

Click to expand...

Not entirely true. The 1st, along with other constitutional provisions, constrains a "government actor" and one can become a "government actor" as a private citizen through sufficiently strong ties to government. The history of that lies in how anti-discrimination laws were rationalized as incorporation through the 14th proceeded.

In this case - an ABC reporter making a false statement that people relied on to their detriment - doesn't get anywhere near "state actor".



Apart from that, the 1st does not provide absolute protection to private individuals anyway. You can be sued for libel, whether written or spoke. You can be charged with disturbing the peace, with inciting the riot, etc. But again, this is nothing like those either.


Intent doesn't even matter unless someone comes up with the kind of citizen/entity-government links that are reflected in the caselaw. And I'm about 15ish years out on that, so I'm not going into details. But ABC is no government actor. That I can say with 99.9999999% certainty.

Is there something I don't know about ABC's funding (aka government) and, more importantly, how much control that funding buys?

ludin said:

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.

Click to expand...

It's happened to every news organization.

I'd recommend just not watching TV news. It's the worst of the worst. But pretending that ABC or MSNBC is any worse than Fox News & various Fox programs is absurd, whether motivated by dishonesty or tinted glasses.

ludin said:

The first amendment only protects you from government. It does not protect you from
Private citizens. Nor does it protect you from civil suits.

Click to expand...

Your third sentence is mutually exclusive with the second.

It DOES protect you from private citizens, hence, the situations in which you can be sued in civil court. But only to those limited extents does it "protect" you from private citizens.

Mr Person said:

Your third sentence is mutually exclusive with the second.

It DOES protect you from private citizens, hence, the situations in which you can be sued in civil court. But only to those limited extents does it "protect" you from private citizens.

Click to expand...

it has very limited reach in the private sector and it usually only pertains to very limited situations.
which usually involve libel or slander suits.

Many people have known that Trump is mentally ill for a while now. With each passing day, through meltdowns like this, he shows it to more and more people. The only questions remains will we rid ourselves of him before he destroys this nation irreparably?

holbritter said:

They are :shrug:

Click to expand...

I showed proof that they aren't. You backed up your rebuttal with a two-word opinion.

That, ma'am, is a wonderful example of why we on the left tend to work with facts more than the right - we deal with real-world data, not just opinion.

ludin said:

Not a first amendment issue. First amendment only pertains to government not private citizens.
It would be a hard case.

Click to expand...

I think he meant freedom of the press, not freedom of speech.

Jetboogieman said:

Wanted to circle back to this, yes I do not discount this, the fact that ABC allowed this to go ahead and didn't check it IS unacceptable and the person that did so was held accountable by the Network, but it shouldn't have happened in the first place

Click to expand...

Ross is an investigative reporter.

There is no reason to get a fact like this wrong.

Mason66 said:

I think he meant freedom of the press, not freedom of speech.

Click to expand...

It is still the first amendment. Doesn't apply in this case.

No court will order someone to pay for possible future damages.
However sued would have to prove that ABC knowingly ran the story to plunge the market.

Now they could possibly sue over due diligence but that is a long shot.

chuckiechan said:

This ABC bogus report certainly tripped a few sell thresholds, followed by quick re buys.

Click to expand...

ABC jumped the gun but ultimately they will be proven right. We still haven't heard what Flynn will say. Flynn knows everything.

We know there were meetings with Russians BEFORE the election. We know Manafort and Kushner were there. Flynn can reveal more.

But the worst part of all this is that Trump fired Flynn for lying but Trump was in on the lie from the beginning. Flynn was only following orders! Everyone in Trump's inner circle knew Flynn was following orders. The entire White House was lying when they pretended to be shocked by what Flynn did.

And everything ABC News reported will be proven true. They just jumped the gun.

ludin said:

Again you prove you no nothing. You should really just stop.
Warren Buffett says well you are wrong. So does any other investor worth his salt.

Click to expand...

Well, to be fair, I would imagine Buffett would agree that on a given couple of hours the market is like a casino, and I doubt if many actual "investors" traded that story - that's what traders do.

It's over the long haul that Buffett would consider the stock market a value proposition, with stocks increasing with changes in long term profits of the underlying companies.

Glen Contrarian said:

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?

Click to expand...

I remember forum liberals (since you want to change the topic) praising NBC for "immediately" firing Lauer as soon as he was accused. Turns out, his bad conduct took years to get him fired!

Glen Contrarian said:

I showed proof that they aren't. You backed up your rebuttal with a two-word opinion.

That, ma'am, is a wonderful example of why we on the left tend to work with facts more than the right - we deal with real-world data, not just opinion.

Click to expand...

Really? That is not 'proof'. Your second link is a listing of all the corrections made by NBC after erroneous reporting. Pages of it almost daily, I don't know what that is 'proof' of except incompetence. And it is common knowledge how retractions and corrections are treated. The headline accusation, the back page correction.

They are all the same.