Subject: Re: O/t, front running, is Wall Street a
"I this case, yes, it's fair to note that it's based on a "real" story, not a fabrication of that rather dubious site.

Though rather than suppressing one's instincts to discredit a discreditable source in this one instance, perhaps this is a much better approach to life:
Just get the news from somewhere reputable to start with. This excludes Facebook, Tiktok, and (yes) zerohedge.
Don't even go to a bad site to get bad opinions and an admixture of slant and fibs added to whatever portion is "real". It can only make you dumber."

It has to do with credibility.

Credible information sources are not perfect, they occasionally get something wrong or miss something. However, they have procedures in place to try and get things right and take steps to correct anything they get wrong. Furthermore, credible sources try to accurately describe the information they are providing. They will clearly let you know if the information is verified, unverified, or speculation.

Non-credible sources of information mix up speculation and fact. The few facts they do use, they spin them so hard that they no longer resemble an accurate description of what is going on. They never correct their errors. Oftentimes the even resort to outright lying.

I rarely listen to NPR. Mostly only on long road trips. However, I do know that if I hear a news story on NPR that I can be fairly sure it is true in a general context. I know this because NPR has been demonstrated to be a credible information source. They have a long history of generally getting it right a vast majority of the time.

Zerohedge is a non-credible source because they are not only often wrong, they are often ridiculously wrong (like tin foil hat wrong). I am quite sure they have occasionally gotten a few things right, but their overall batting average is terrible.

I prefer to use information sources that have a high batting average on getting information correct. For a long time I could not even imagine why someone would regularly use an information source that is so unreliable. What is the point? Why use something that regularly leads their views astray? Doesn't seem smart.

Then one day I realized that these people are not using them as information sources. They are using them as comfort. They want their biases confirmed so they seek out sources that confirm their biases, even if these sources have to lie to them.

I