Apart from the media, of course. For example, Newsweek is calling GME investors "far-right extremists"[1] while The Washington Post is comparing the situation to the Capitol riots[2].
[1] - https://www.newsweek.com/far-right-extremists-use-gamestop-c...
[2] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/01/30/good-guys...
1. Going to your own link, Newsweek did not call "GME investors "far-right extremists"". The article clearly states that far-right extremists were instead using the "stick-it-to-the-man" ethos driving a lot of the GME investor chatter to recruit. There is a huge difference.
2. As other's have pointed out, WaPo published an Op Ed, this was not something under their Editorial Board or a news article. Saying "The Washington Post is comparing the situation to the Capitol riots" is deliberately misleading.
The point of the article is to associate WSB with far-right extremists. It's a common manipulation tactic, they're making them seem guilty by association.
>As other's have pointed out, WaPo published an Op Ed, this was not something under their Editorial Board or a news article. Saying "The Washington Post is comparing the situation to the Capitol riots" is deliberately misleading.
People often say that "op-eds don't represent the official opinion of the paper", but it's provably false.
There's no shortage of people who are willing to write pro-Trump op-eds, after all, almost half of the country voted for him. How come they aren't getting published in NYT, WaPo etc.? Because publishing an op-ed is a soft endorsement. It doesn't necessarily mean that they 100% agree with it, but it definitely means that they consider the opinion "acceptable".
Yes, but no. It’s called throwing shade and while it is very different from actually showing evidence on a subject and making a claim, it is intended to link the ideas in the readers mind.
In middle school it would go like “I’m not saying hn_throwaway is a slut, but I did see her watching Harry Potter and also saw three other boys who say they like her at the theater that weekend.”
Both statements are true, but without some other fact they don’t matter so the only reason to mention them is to make a claim without evidence. Especially since I explicitly said I’m not calling you a slut.
The article linked does not act responsibly by mentioning these facts in the same article without some link. I think it’s mostly last journalism coupled with trying to click-bait get eyeballs for ads.
I too like HN for our attempted critical thinking, and I like that people keep busting through different theories and trying to get to the source of truth.
> Both statements are true, but without some other fact they don’t matter so the only reason to mention them is to make a claim without evidence. Especially since I explicitly said I’m not calling you a slut.
Except that's not even remotely like what the Newsweek article said. Sticking with the middle school comparison, what the article said is that hn_throwaway threw a large graduation party that was open to the public, and some religious cultists came to try to recruit from among the partygoers.
There is no attempt to imply that hn_throwaway is a one of the cultists, or approves of the cultists. It is just reporting that the cultists tried to use hn_throwaway's party to find recruits.
I think the newsworthy piece would be if the religious cultists were going to every party trying to recruit, or there was something special about hn_throwaway that the cultists targeted.
The school newspaper writes an article about the party. The article doesn’t answer this question or even indicate whether they tried. So there’s no real reason to report on this other than to link the cultists and hn_throwaway. Actually, the reason is that more students will read the article trying to learn about this cultist thing and hn_throwaway’s recent activity that made them popular among kids.
And we stopped the trade for your own good. Yeah, right.
Personally, I think this is a smokescreen for a pretty smart invested group. I hope we eventually learn who did it just to satisfy my curiosity. If they are dumb, we will. If they are successful, we never will as the technique is too useful to use again.
I suspect that the truth is closer to "Wall Street" than we care to admit. Insider information is still the key, not stochastic differential equations, Ito's formula and portfolio balance theories. Melvin putting all their leveraged eggs in one basket is considered above board, and is not being questioned.
A lot of hedge funds are dinosaurs and are slowly going extinct. Even in the last 5 years there has been a big shift: investors really prefer systematic firms and raising money for a discretionary fund gets harder and harder every day.
I do not believe insider information is key. If it was, hedge fund risk adjusted returns would probably be less abysmal. It's not that straightforward to evaluate hf performance, but trust me when I say, there a lot of funds out there providing very dubious value to investors.
Sure. But it's under their banner. They edit the op ed and can demand unsubstantiated claims be substantiated or removed. Otherwise it really is no better than done racist blog.
A case that can't be made without facts that can't be stood up shouldn't be made in any newspaper that values it's reputation.
For reference, this is from an article from the newsroom:
But of course, what the Reddit cabal did to inflate the stock of bygone-era companies like GameStop, AMC Entertainment and Bed Bath & Beyond simply mirrored what the hedge fund sharpies had done in conspiring to “short” those same stocks and drive down the prices
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/01/30/financial...
The concept is for the editor or owner to be able publish something with plausible deniability.