We have to first give a rough definition of Market Manipulation:
I’m no securities lawyer, but knowing that rough definition makes me still not a securities lawyer.
So is CNBC doing some good ole Market Manipulation? Tis the question and here are the facts:
They post Bearish news, which is somewhat reasonable, but also slightly biased (technically not illegal unless paid)
They are posting news that is overly bearish, to possible turn diamonds in to paper hands. This isn’t illegal, but it’s indicative of driving markets down.
It’s a bearish article positioned to look bullish because it has high energy words like “constant stream”, “excited”, “buyers”, “Rally”, and “going”. This is probably a planned wording of an article to give the face value impression of bullish.
However, if you add the whole sentence up and try to get the meaning. It sounds doubtful and naive sounding like it’s going to take extra-work to keep the rally going. This is a way to sow seeds of psychological doubt in a person. Because your subconscious process things at levels faster than I know. Because I’m not a doctor, duh.
Some people have called CNBC out on other subjects, specifically the CNBC bullish articles on silver to pay out the hedge funds that are long silver and also to detract interest off of the bullish run on GME:
Literally lying to themselves:
I mean, what more do you need?
Somehow have “insider knowledge”
It’s not really insider knowledge if they publicly reveal it. Because they’re public media, so they get to do that sort of stuff. However this information is false, so either they’re lying or their source is lying.
Also, CNBC said they had knowledge from S3 partners and then S3 Partners’ twitter handle said otherwise.
CNBC is also running ads claiming that Melvin Closed its short positions. Which may or may not be true because Melvin could’ve sold them to another Short seller. However this ad definitely was Market Manipulation in order to get people to doubt and paper hands their way out.
One redditer calls em out:
Then they blast the video in an Advertisement to try and get to the masses:
The video also claims that the purchase of GME “clearly has nothing to do with fundamental” as if that’s a verifiable claim? Wait until I tell Daddy DeepFuckingValue! CNBC is faker news then this joke website. And I’m a joke!
Desperation calls for blatant market manipulation. Totally okay if you’re a billionaire hedge fund circle jerk, apparently.
Just know, if they are telling you. It’s probably for a reason.
Yet there refusal to stop misinformation and highly fear mongering language does not go unnoticed:
They Selectively edit their News
One user points out their edits and relations
They have edited a video, and I wrote about that earlier in the History in the making $GME article, here are the chopped up videos:
The argument continues (you see where CNBC stands by their selective edits):
Here is a link to the video in full, just skip the Chinese media coverage exposing American Media.
CNBC owns mad money, and have somehow convinced the Show’s host to go against r/wsb after siding with them during the rise of $GME over the week initiating the short squeeze.
But he turned his back, because (probably) his handler CNBC pushed him to. To advocate to r/wsb as if he was one of the autists on board.
Hey, I don’t blame Jim Cramer for the recent sell out, and I don’t have any animosity against him. I’m diamond handing things.
However, this is something that I am going to hold against CNBC. For turning an acquaintance against the power of the gamers.
To be fair, Jim has a bit of a history being a previous hedge fund manager:
I think Jim is a smart guy and he probably knows how all of this will end. So let the orchestra play its song, Jim-bo. We hold at dawn.
Relations with Robinhood?
Most days I wake up and realize I don’t know shit. I used to struggle with whether to open Robinhood or Instagram, and after the whole Robinhood fiasco, It’s now an easy solution. Just go back to sleep.
You see, they somehow were able to arrange a back-to-back interviews with Robinhood CEO while Robinhood was under Scrutiny for Actions during hot trading of GME in a volatile market. Robinhood had some sketchy actions and was able to get their CEO on some hot interviews during some hot times.
CEO seems to be reading off of a script, maybe some prepared response to say Robinhood doesn’t have a liquidity issue:
Yet Robinhood borrowed more money from a possible conflict of interest creditor.
Granted, the CEO also was on other talk shows and was third-degreed there. So CNBC might not be in cahoots with Robinhood, but their hands seem very exposed.
Regardless CNBC seems to normalize the actions of Robinhood and calls retail traders ‘amateur’ instead of ‘retards’. Would much prefer ‘Retail Traders’ than ‘amateurs’. And ‘Retards’ over ‘Retail traders’. Personally.
CNBC also has articles that seem apologetic on behalf of Robinhood, defending them saying that they were financially unable to buy stonks.
Also, if the reason was due to costs being raised tenfold, wouldn’t they prevent buying ALL STONKS? Seems like there’s a big lie here.
Also, why would Robinhood turn off buying during market hours? If they knew it was a problem, shouldn’t they let everyone know, like, maybe the day before????
CNBC also calls it a Reddit Rebellion and blames republicans or some shit in the video above. As if (evil) Hedge Funds aren’t hated by both Left and Right.
“Something, something blame MAGA Trump, something.” – The video just above (basically)
Regardless, CNBC does not point out the STEEP DROP from Robinhood’s decisions to limit buying or prevent buying. It’s not something that they should skim over.
To go further, there are several CNBC videos that call it a Rebellion.
CNBC calls it a reddit rebellion.
Look bud, if you want to know what side your on, look at people.
Do you call it a rebellion or a revolution?
Do you call it a protest or a riot?
CNBC’s languag-ing implies that they are not with the people in this one. Let alone, non-biased. If you were non-biased, you would call it something else. Like, idk “a short squeeze” or “GME gains”.
The video above talks about the Robinhood Restrictions:
Then the top right dude on the panel talks about how “I don’t see anything wrong” in reference to Robinhood Restrictions.
I get that the panel isn’t really the mouth piece of CNBC, but it is something to show the thoughts and words allowed. Also they called multi millionaires ‘average joes’.
Now to attack their character:
Because ad hominem is a great bludgeon of rhetoric.
They think Loss Porn simply doesn’t exist. As if people don’t brag about losing their entire life savings. Like, you underestimate how retarded I, or other investors, can be.
For most people, like me, that was money we weren’t going to see until forty years or so down the road. Money that means nothing to me now or in the mean time, and I’d probably die before I get to retirement age. Statistically and anally speaking.
Anyways, I’ve committed financial suicide once before, and I was down 40k. Instead of investing in $ROPE next, I worked my way back and made some shitty moves and two years later of slaving away, I’m back in the game.
So now I have an appreciation for loss porn, because I know how it feels. It’s a mix of people who enjoy it, some people want to laugh at someone for being we-todd-it, others empathetically feel the pain, and some just enjoy the ride.
If you look at loss porn, it’s like a slide.
Yes, Loss Porn exists and I’ve seen a fair share of it over the years:
Is CNBC at fault?
Maybe, I mean any idiot with lots of money can claim that they know something.
Hell, if someone has credentials and a background, they might even offer a ‘tip’ of the market as if they’re doing a good thing.
Then maybe manipulate it to buy a bunch of shares.
Well, without hard evidence, it can only seem like blatant market manipulation. If CNBC posts false stuff, they just might have a bad source. So the sources should be vetted and traced to the lie. Because when the news is out there, the damage is already done.
So have they owned up to the potential Billions of dollars lost to shareholders?
CNBC haven’t posted redactions or apologies (as far as I’ve seen), so Yeah, they’re at fault.
There’s nothing wrong with shorting stocks or being a rainbow bear. But market manipulation is a no-no.
Strongly Disrespect CNBC
I’m a retard and all of this is fictional and for entertainment purposes only
*Not Valid Financial, Legal, Life, or Any Advice
2 thoughts on “Is CNBC doing some Market Manipulation? Most Probably.”
[…] I wrote a whole article on CNBC and their possible Market Manipulation. […]
[…] know how Citadel is a short seller and how I’ve written a few pieces here about CNBC being pushing out market […]