• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

chuckiechan

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Messages
16,568
Reaction score
7,253
Location
California Caliphate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Trump urges investors who lost money after 'false' ABC, Brian Ross report to sue network | Fox News

The Dow Jones average on Friday morning indeed plunged by 350 points after Ross incorrectly reported that former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn was going to testify that Trump, as a presidential candidate, directed Flynn to contact Russian officials, amid federal investigations into whether Moscow and the Trump campaign colluded in the race.

However, the Dow, a major stock market index, regained most of its early Friday loses and finished just 41 points down when the markets closed for business.

This could get interesting. Most mutual funds and other traders use automated sell systems. This ABC bogus report certainly tripped a few sell thresholds, followed by quick re buys.

The end result? A bunch of people lost money, and a bunch of people made money, but reason was the irresponsible reporting fake news - I.E. jorrnalistic malpractice. The fact that ABC suspended the reporter hurts their case if they get sued.
 
Trump urges investors who lost money after 'false' ABC, Brian Ross report to sue network | Fox News

This could get interesting. Most mutual funds and other traders use automated sell systems. This ABC bogus report certainly tripped a few sell thresholds, followed by quick re buys.

The end result? A bunch of people lost money, and a bunch of people made money, but reason was the irresponsible reporting fake news - I.E. jorrnalistic malpractice. The fact that ABC suspended the reporter hurts their case if they get sued.

I think we’re fortunate it didn’t fall further than that. But as for suing? Well, Inwish them good luck. They would need plenty.
 
Trump urges investors who lost money after 'false' ABC, Brian Ross report to sue network | Fox News

This could get interesting. Most mutual funds and other traders use automated sell systems. This ABC bogus report certainly tripped a few sell thresholds, followed by quick re buys.

The end result? A bunch of people lost money, and a bunch of people made money, but reason was the irresponsible reporting fake news - I.E. jorrnalistic malpractice. The fact that ABC suspended the reporter hurts their case if they get sued.

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?
 
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?

I think you’re about right.
 
Trump urges investors who lost money after 'false' ABC, Brian Ross report to sue network | Fox News



This could get interesting. Most mutual funds and other traders use automated sell systems. This ABC bogus report certainly tripped a few sell thresholds, followed by quick re buys.

The end result? A bunch of people lost money, and a bunch of people made money, but reason was the irresponsible reporting fake news - I.E. jorrnalistic malpractice. The fact that ABC suspended the reporter hurts their case if they get sued.

That guy just keeps on saying stupider and stupider stuff, don't he?
It's like he doesn't realize yet what his position is.
 
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?

You pay for damages, if you have an accident with your car.
 
Trump urges investors who lost money after 'false' ABC, Brian Ross report to sue network | Fox News



This could get interesting. Most mutual funds and other traders use automated sell systems. This ABC bogus report certainly tripped a few sell thresholds, followed by quick re buys.

The end result? A bunch of people lost money, and a bunch of people made money, but reason was the irresponsible reporting fake news - I.E. jorrnalistic malpractice. The fact that ABC suspended the reporter hurts their case if they get sued.

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?
 
You pay for damages, if you have an accident with your car.

Nobody made anybody sell any stock.

So they drove their own "cars" into a wall.

So I'm not sure what the angle would be.
 
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?

How often has CNN and MSNBC and NBC or any other major network. Must we continue playing whataboutism?
 
I think we’re fortunate it didn’t fall further than that. But as for suing? Well, Inwish them good luck. They would need plenty.

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.
 
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?



They should have held him to that standard previously as well. But didn't.

Ari Fleischer, who served as press secretary for President George W. Bush, wrote on Twitter that the error was the latest in a series of high-profile mistakes by Mr. Ross.

“I explicitly told ABC News not to go with the anthrax story because it was wrong,” Mr. Fleischer wrote, in reference to a 2001 report in which he said Mr. Ross inaccurately linked Iraq and its dictator Saddam Hussein to an anthrax attack on the United States. “Brian Ross went with it anyway.”

In 2012, Mr. Ross and ABC issued an apology after Mr. Ross incorrectly suggested that the shooter in the massacre at an Aurora, Colo., movie theater was involved with a Tea Party organization.

While Ms. Culver said the network’s decision to suspend Mr. Ross was an appropriate first step, she said the mistake should also prompt a wider assessment by ABC of his record, as well as a more general evaluation across the media industry of the push for speed, which likely contributed to the error.

“We are at a time when public trust in news media is so low that we have to work constantly to try to rebuild that trust,” she said. “And every time practices go awry like this, we do damage to that trust. And rightly so. People are correct in being suspicious of reports that seem too big to be true.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/02/us/brian-ross-suspended-abc.html
 
You pay for damages, if you have an accident with your car.

That depends on alot of factors though and in this case I'm sure this also touches on 1st Amendment issues and certainly with the way the President behaves, he may not want to encourage this line of thinking considering the damage he's liable to do one day with his big mouth and small twitter fingers.
 
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?

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

They’d also have to prove the stock market falling a mere 350 points was a foreseeable consequence of his story.
 
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?

Of course it is arm chair lawyering.

ABC caused real wealth to move by shooting off their mouth.

But you are right, it won’t go anywhere. The MSM is under no obligation to tell the truth or even retract this story for that matter.
 
Nobody made anybody sell any stock.

So they drove their own "cars" into a wall.

So I'm not sure what the angle would be.

You don't know that much about stocks do you?
Most stock traders are smart and have stop limits in place.

So if a stock drops below a certain point it automatically sells.
This drop caused a huge sell off to occur as stock prices dropped.

People that otherwise would have held ended up selling then having to buy back.
That cost them gen more money as brokerage firms charge people 2-10 dollars a trade.
 
Not a first amendment issue.

Again completely armchair lawyering here but through precedence you are making it one, because the courts would as Maggie pointed out be essentially saying you are liable for unforeseen financial consequences of your speech, seems to me that's a can of worms you wouldn't want to open.

Now if you say, for example as a government official, told a business partner you were going to announce an investigation into a certain company, or as a journalist breaking a story about a certain company knowing what that would do to its stock price and told your buddy to short, that's a clear cut case that's going to virtually instantly end up with jailed people.
 
They’d also have to prove the stock market falling a mere 350 points was a foreseeable consequence of his story.

As I said a hugely difficult case to prove, but usually any kind of instability in government will cause the market to
Shake.
 
ABC caused real wealth to move by shooting off their mouth.

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
 
Again completely armchair lawyering here but through precedence you are making it one, because the courts would as Maggie pointed out be essentially saying you are liable for unforeseen financial consequences of your speech, seems to me that's a can of worms you wouldn't want to open.

Now if you say, for example as a government official, told a business partner you were going to announce an investigation into a certain company, or as a journalist breaking a story about a certain company knowing what that would do to its stock price and told your buddy to short, that's a clear cut case that's going to virtually instantly end up with jailed people.

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

That doesn't mean they don't have a near impossible case.
This would follow similar to the co movie theater case.

Where the judge threw that case out.
You can't be held liable for future losses that you are not aware of.



What you described is called insider trading which is illegal already.
 
You don't know that much about stocks do you?
Most stock traders are smart and have stop limits in place.

So if a stock drops below a certain point it automatically sells.
This drop caused a huge sell off to occur as stock prices dropped.

People that otherwise would have held ended up selling then having to buy back.
That cost them gen more money as brokerage firms charge people 2-10 dollars a trade.

Wall street is a casino.

Bet at your own risk.
 
Trump urges investors who lost money after 'false' ABC, Brian Ross report to sue network | Fox News



This could get interesting. Most mutual funds and other traders use automated sell systems. This ABC bogus report certainly tripped a few sell thresholds, followed by quick re buys.

The end result? A bunch of people lost money, and a bunch of people made money, but reason was the irresponsible reporting fake news - I.E. jorrnalistic malpractice. The fact that ABC suspended the reporter hurts their case if they get sued.

I guess the USA never got the c grabber BBC DOCUMENTARY.
several billion $ bankruptcies.
Banks wouldn't lend him.
Had to go overseas for $
Wonder where
 
How often has CNN and MSNBC and NBC or any other major network. Must we continue playing whataboutism?

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom