Stocks A to Z / Stocks B / Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A)
No. of Recommendations: 3
No. of Recommendations: 39
Zerohedge? Please stop polluting the board with idiotic conspiracy theories from a Bulgarian website. Thank you.
"Overall, we rate ZeroHedge an extreme right-biased conspiracy website based on the promotion of false/misleading/debunked information that routinely denigrates the left."
"Bias Rating: RIGHT CONSPIRACY/PSEUDOSCIENCE
Factual Reporting: LOW
Country: Bulgaria"
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/zero-hedge/
No. of Recommendations: 5
"Zerohedge? Please stop polluting the board with idiotic conspiracy theories from a Bulgarian website. Thank you."
Good morning , Stop embarrassing yourself bro and read it. Who knows NPR or msnbc might even report the story ?
No. of Recommendations: 3
Now you don't trust the honorable, NYT ?
"" The back and forth between the financial firms and the economist "who has been with the BLS for many years" was first reported by the New York Times; as discussed previously, the government bureaucrat sent several emails to a broader group, which he called “my super users” in one of the emails obtained by Bloomberg. The BLS previously lied when it said it doesn’t maintain a list of “super users.”
No. of Recommendations: 29
Zerohedge? Please stop polluting the board with idiotic conspiracy theories from a Bulgarian website. Thank you."
Some people don't mind using sources of information that misinform them and often make them look like fools as long as those sources confirm their worldview.
Basically they would rather be lied to and comforted rather than be informed.
No. of Recommendations: 8
For the past 5 years the new york post, wall st j, and zero hedge NEVER got the story right, NEVER, its NPR, msnbc, cnn, etc that always report the facts, and always have the story correct. Can it get any more embarrassing to be an American liberal ? Carry on kids, you push Dems out of the party by the minute.
No. of Recommendations: 8
Zerohedge? Please stop polluting the board with idiotic conspiracy theories from a Bulgarian website. Thank you.Better to judge based on what is actually being said rather than instinctively discrediting based on painting the source with a broad brush.
NYT and Bloomberg have reported on this. ZH is merely commenting.
NYT: New Questions on How a Key Agency Shared Inflation Data
https://archive.ph/K2cLFBloomberg: US Labor Department Sows Confusion With Email on Consumer Prices
https://archive.ph/xu8Ix
No. of Recommendations: 37
Better to judge based on what is actually being said rather than instinctively discrediting based on painting the source with a broad brush.
NYT and Bloomberg have reported on this. ZH is merely commenting.
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.
Of course being dumb and misinformed isn't any barrier to success these days, so perhaps giving priority to observable reality is overrated as a career move!
Jim
No. of Recommendations: 22
"For the past 5 years the new york post, wall st j, and zero hedge NEVER got the story right, NEVER, its NPR, msnbc, cnn, etc that always report the facts, and always have the story correct."
Do you really think building a false choice and a strawman is a valid form of argument that will help you with your credibility problem?
"Can it get any more embarrassing to be an American liberal ? Carry on kids, you push Dems out of the party by the minute."
Before being embarrassed for others, perhaps look in the mirror. You are the one who regularly posts links to obvious nuttiness that has very little to do with reality. Then when called on it makes up false strawman arguments. So you cannot tell reality from conspiracy nuttiness and you cannot even accurately describe what your opponents are saying. That is pretty embarrassing.
No. of Recommendations: 20
<<Better to judge based on what is actually being said rather than instinctively discrediting based on painting the source with a broad brush.
NYT and Bloomberg have reported on this. ZH is merely commenting.>
Please provide the NY Times or Bloomberg link, you'll see a very different story.
ZeroHedge is making a mountain out of a mole hill, which is what they do...
The Bureau of Labor Statistic addressed the issue when the NYT's questioned it:
Emily Liddel, an associate commissioner at the Bureau of Labor Statistics, said the agency tries to be responsive to users and to answer technical questions.
“We allow employees to speak directly with interested parties in order to match up the experts with the people who are trying to understand the data,” she said.
The email controversy, Ms. Liddel said, “caused no small amount of embarrassment” and will lead to more training and a review of policies on information disclosure.
“There are bureauwide efforts to re-emphasize the importance of making sure that everyone has equitable access to the data,” she said.
In short, nothing much there. An employee seems to have created a subgroup of contacts and sent them an email believing she was clarifying a data anomaly but instead caused confusion.
Reminder: ZeroHedge is rated "CONSPIRACY-PSEDOSCIENCE" for "the promotion of false/misleading/debunked information that routinely denigrates the left" for a reason.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/19/business/econom...https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/05/business/econom...
No. of Recommendations: 28
"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
No. of Recommendations: 6
I don’t trust a single word printed in the NYTs, including the and and.
No. of Recommendations: 5
No. of Recommendations: 6
Good lord, don't people realize that every source lies, lies, lies?
The whole media is now like Pravda & Isvestia in the Soviet Union. You cannot trust a single word they say.
Every single one of them.
No. of Recommendations: 8
"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.""Am man hears what he wants to hear..."
https://www.thefp.com/p/npr-editor-how-npr-lost-am...
No. of Recommendations: 27
From the article
Back in 2011, although NPR’s audience tilted a bit to the left, it still bore a resemblance to America at large. Twenty-six percent of listeners described themselves as conservative, 23 percent as middle of the road, and 37 percent as liberal.
By 2023, the picture was completely different: only 11 percent described themselves as very or somewhat conservative, 21 percent as middle of the road, and 67 percent of listeners said they were very or somewhat liberal. We weren’t just losing conservatives; we were also losing moderates and traditional liberals. So I am an NPR listener and this is only anecdotal, but perhaps they were not losing conservatives and moderates, maybe the traditional listener like me has changed their viewpoint from what was considered conservative views to liberal views. Remember this is a self reporting survey. There are numerous polls that show what used to be a conservative person, such as holding multiple degrees, supporting immigration etc. are now considered liberals. So same listeners, just a different label.
An article from PEW research
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/04/09/th...I think the article supports the viewpoint that people can change their views over time. Perhaps because I have been listening to NPR! :)
Aussi
No. of Recommendations: 9
"Good lord, don't people realize that every source lies, lies, lies?
The whole media is now like Pravda & Isvestia in the Soviet Union. You cannot trust a single word they say.
Every single one of them."
I will assume that as a source you are now lying in order to make a multi-layered sarcastic joke.
The alternative is to assume you actually believe this.
No. of Recommendations: 4
No. of Recommendations: 23
"NPR,a reliable source, that’s better than any show in Vegas. https://www.thefp.com/p/npr-editor-how-npr-lost-am..."That editorial has been in the news quite a bit the past couple of days.
You should also read some of the numerous rebuttals and critiques of it, but I bet you won't because while they will educate you they will also make you feel uncomfortable.
You want comfort, not education. That is quite clear.
Besides, the point you (and the author of that editorial) don't get is that there is a difference between accuracy and bias. One can influence the other, but they are distinct traits. Of course all information sources have biases. No one thinks otherwise except the strawmen you create. However not all sources have a long history of accuracy.
So to make it clear for you, when a person is listening to NPR, they can rightly assume that the source is probably biased in their view. However they can also rightly assume that the information they are given is generally quite accurate. Not only accurate in a factual sense, but also accurate in a contextual sense as well. Not even the editorial link you provide disputes this.
When a person is reading zerohedge, they can rightly assume the source is biased in their view. Just like NPR. However, where NPR is different than zerohedge is accuracy. Given the long history of lies, distortions, and spin that zerohedge engages in, a zerohedge reader cannot have the same relative assurances of accuracy that an NPR listener can have.
So while I am quite sure that all of the nutty information sources that feed your comfort bubble try and tell you that NPR and Zerohedge are the same because they are both biased and occasionally get a story wrong, so they should have the same credibility. This is not true because it ignores the batting average on accuracy. One (NPR) is far more accurate in it's reporting simply because they have standards and procedures in place to increase their accuracy. Zerohedge does not have those policies and standards so they feed you lots of crap.
The National Enquirer (famous for bigfoot pictures, stories of Elvis still being alive working in a Michigan gas station, and people being probed by aliens) is famous for once credibly breaking the story of Gary Hart (a Democratic presidential candidate) having an affair. It was the one national news story they have ever gotten right and they beat all of the "real" news organizations to the story. So while they are biased (just like everyone else), they have gotten one real story right in 40+ years of publishing, so you think they have the same credibility as NPR. They don't. Their batting average is terrible.
And that is the thing. No one here wants these pages overwhelmed with links to National Enquirer stories about aliens kidnapping Buffett and anal probing him for information. They don't want these pages overwhelmed with links to National Enquirer stories of Elvis working at a Michigan gas station. They want posts that educate them.
I am trying to help you educate yourself on how to find more credible information sources. I am pretty sure I would be better off trying to teach a pig to sing because you want comfort and reading and understanding this gives you some uncomfortable information. So you will probably reply with some comment about Vegas shows that only you thinks is witty and continue to read nuttery in order to achieve that comfort.
If you are seeking comfort, why not eat a cookie instead of polluting the board with nutty trash?
No. of Recommendations: 12
"Please provide the NY Times or Bloomberg link, you'll see a very different story.
ZeroHedge is making a mountain out of a mole hill, which is what they do..."
And this is the key on why some sources are more credible than others. When a credible information source reports on the story, they paint an accurate picture of what happened. Some mildly concerning actions took place between Bureau of Labor Statistics and Wall Street and were later corrected. An informative story that educates the consumer about what is going on in the world. It leads to the consumer of the information source to be better educated and more knowledgeable about the world. When a non-credible information source reports on the story, it turns it into some sensationalist conspiracy that not only does not educate the consumer, it misinforms them. It draws a very different picture and makes the consumer looks foolish when they repeat the story.
No. of Recommendations: 4
polluting the board with nutty trash?
Isn't the whole thread polluting it since many posts now? So both sides? Like that bitter fighting between two sides nonsense on the US Politics board? If you don't want pollution you simply should ignore a post you find pollution instead of reacting agitated to it.
No. of Recommendations: 15
"So I am an NPR listener and this is only anecdotal, but perhaps they were not losing conservatives and moderates, maybe the traditional listener like me has changed their viewpoint from what was considered conservative views to liberal views. Remember this is a self reporting survey. There are numerous polls that show what used to be a conservative person, such as holding multiple degrees, supporting immigration etc. are now considered liberals. So same listeners, just a different label."
If Charlie were still alive today, I think his comment about the editorial would be something along the lines of NPR is perceived to have a liberal bias simply because reality has a liberal bias.
No. of Recommendations: 3
I will assume that as a source you are now lying in order to make a multi-layered sarcastic joke.
LOL. I am not a news source, I don't report anything.
The alternative is to assume you actually believe this.
Duh! You really believe that any of them tell the actual truth? As opposed to telling a story slanted to their beliefs?
Left, right, Ukraine, Russia, global cooling, acid rain, ozone hole, global warming (currently known as various shades of climate change, climate emergency, climate disaster)
Every story is slanted. Sometimes the slant is ignoring an inconvenient story.
None of which has anything to do with Berkshire Hathaway. I guess maybe because BRK is just boringly plodding along gradually making us rich?
No. of Recommendations: 4
" If Charlie were still alive today, I think his comment about the editorial would be something along the lines of NPR is perceived to have a liberal bias simply because reality has a liberal bias."
priceless.
No. of Recommendations: 6
"priceless."
Thank you for proving my prediction about you true.
Now go have a cookie.
No. of Recommendations: 25
On this topic I highly recommend watching "Anti Social Network: Memes to Mayhem" on Netflix. It explains how Anonymous started during Occupy Wall Street and eventually morphed into the Alt Right dystopian Trump world we're all living in today.
Zero Hedge is absurd, as are all alternative fact based opinion news web sites. The real problem is that the horse got ahead of the apple cart with the internet and more specifically social media. It's going to be a while before we catch up and develop norms to cope with this sudden rise, although until then I'm afraid we're going to have to live with Matt Gaetz and Moscow Marjorie Taylor Green being treated as serious people! Dear lord, help us all!!
No. of Recommendations: 6
" Zero Hedge is absurd, as are all alternative fact based opinion news web sites. The real problem is that the horse got ahead of the apple cart with the internet and more specifically social media. It's going to be a while before we catch up and develop norms to cope with this sudden rise, although until then I'm afraid we're going to have to live with Matt Gaetz and Moscow Marjorie Taylor Green being treated as serious people! Dear lord, help us all!!""
We all know the trustworthy sources of info the past 5 years have been, npr, msnbc, our CDC , Fauci, Birx, Collins, etc, and that Taibbi, Weiss, Bhattacharya , Prasad, Musk, etc are all conspiracy nuts. Hurry up and get that fourth booster into your healthy kids arms. Good luck, carry on.
No. of Recommendations: 12
"We all know the trustworthy sources of info the past 5 years have been, npr, msnbc, our CDC , Fauci, Birx, Collins, etc, and that Taibbi, Weiss, Bhattacharya , Prasad, Musk, etc are all conspiracy nuts. Hurry up and get that fourth booster into your healthy kids arms. Good luck, carry on."
Still only able to debate strawmen of your creation? That is sad.
Go have a cookie.
No. of Recommendations: 17
HC: Take this over to US Policy Board, please.
No. of Recommendations: 35
I assume most of the noise on this board is created by the same poster who clogged up the MF board with his off-topic fanatical nonsense. I believe HC and Vegas and likely in the handle. I haven't seen any of the noise/nonsense since the 'ignore poster' button here works splendidly. I suggest to others to try this option when you decide the noise has overwhelmed whatever signal you think is worth it.
I will say sometimes the board reads like a slew of non-sequiturs because of this. But it's better than contemplating wingnut theories that Mr. Munger would've swatted away in five seconds.
I enjoy all the posters in my feed. Many of you give me hope for humanity. I thank you for that.
be well
Smurfdogg
No. of Recommendations: 0
" In retrospect, it appears the BLS really did have something to hide, because in a follow up from both the NYT and Bloomberg, we now learn that an economist from the Bureau of Labor Statistics was corresponding on data related the monthly CPI print with major firms like JPMorgan and BlackRock, in what Bloomberg said "raised questions about equitable access to economic information."
Extending on the report from February, records requested by Bloomberg revealed that the unnamed BLS economist answered numerous inquiries about details within the CPI in recent months, mostly related to computations in key categories within shelter as well as used cars, according to
The back and forth between the financial firms and the economist "who has been with the BLS for many years" was first reported by the New York Times; as discussed previously, the government bureaucrat sent several emails to a broader group, which he called “my super users” in one of the emails obtained by Bloomberg. The BLS previously lied when it said it doesn’t maintain a list of “super users.”
The NYT and Bloomberg are fake news? Brilliant!!
No. of Recommendations: 4
<I enjoy all the posters in my feed. Many of you give me hope for humanity. I thank you for that.>
Ditto.
Thanks, Smurfdogg
Where's the block poster button?
:-)Shawn
No. of Recommendations: 9
To ignore a publisher, click the unhappy yellow face beside their name, whilst reading their post.
No. of Recommendations: 3
The proof that Zero Hedge is a thinly veiled front for an extremist, right-wing chat board is in the comments section posted after every article. Read those for awhile, and you will throw up a little into your mouth.
Smufty
No. of Recommendations: 0
" right-wing chat board is in the comments section posted after every article"
I have no idea why this is still coming up but, do you have any trump supporting friends? Now you judge content based on who responds to it, in the comments ? Try to convince trumpers to watch Smerconish or Cuomo, let us know what names they call you. Does that prove that Smerconish and Cuomo are biased progressive ,far left, hacks ? Stay in your comfort zone, msnbc and npr, no doubt.
No. of Recommendations: 0
