Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday April 11 2017, @01:21PM   Printer-friendly
from the ow-who-ya-gonna-trust? dept.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Monday announced a crackdown on alleged stock promotion schemes in which writers were secretly paid to post hundreds of bullish articles about public companies on financial websites.

Twenty-seven individuals and entities, including a Hollywood actress, were charged with misleading investors into believing they were reading "independent, unbiased analyses" on websites such as Seeking Alpha, Benzinga and Wall Street Cheat Sheet.

The SEC said many writers used pseudonyms such as Equity Options Guru, The Swiss Trader, Trading Maven and Wonderful Wizard to hype stocks.

It said it found more than 450 problem articles, of which more than 250 falsely said the writers were not being paid.

No word on conflicts of interest and misleading information in regard to stock promotion on television news networks.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Tuesday April 11 2017, @11:18PM (1 child)

    by kaszz (4211) on Tuesday April 11 2017, @11:18PM (#492520) Journal

    Critical thinking should start at school year four at least.

    I'll agree with your single source point. But sometimes it's all you got. However one might also so if the information connects to other pieces of information, ie makes sense and checks out.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday April 12 2017, @02:28PM

    by Thexalon (636) on Wednesday April 12 2017, @02:28PM (#492762)

    I'll agree with your single source point. But sometimes it's all you got.

    Agreed. If all you have is a single source point, though, that conclusion is to be regarded as somewhat more likely, but not conclusive.

    However one might also see if the information connects to other pieces of information, ie makes sense and checks out.

    If you are doing this, you have to be very very careful about ensuring that it is not simply confirming your pre-existing biases. Failing to do so is how conspiracy theories develop and expand: New evidence can be easily adjusted to fit into the conspiracy theory, even if each individual piece of evidence doesn't in fact point to the conspiracy in question.

    --
    The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.