The author's intended audience is the one for the New
York times. The New York times is a very left leaning news source. The author's
credibility comes from a wide range of the people that sit on the board that co-writes these articles, that have a variety
of backgrounds in the journalistic field. On top of this, they have a range of ages and experiences in life. In which
that can give them credibility. The boards
argument, and first part of their argument is there claim is that “If Mr. Salman’s conviction is overturned,
any insider could freely disclose confidential information to relatives who
could then trade on it, and so long as the insider didn’t ask for any money in
return, no one would be liable”. (quote from the article). The second part of their
argument was there evidence of this claim. In my
opinion, the evidence is not really there and is more implied, nothing
that I read had given any sort of hard statics or evidence about what would happen
if the suit went in the favor of
Mr. Salomon’s side. The third part of their augment is
there logic, I looked and looked everywhere for it. The only logic I found
was one based on assumptions and emotion
which is not logic. Logic applies statics, scientific studies, and hard fact
based evidence. This article had none, it was a barren desert of logic with no
water in sight. Here’s just an example of
that “logic” “They also say that “But absolving Mr. Salman would set a
precedent that would make the fight to stop illegal insider trading even harder.”
How do they know that absolving Mr.
Salman would make it harder to stop illegal trading? Do they present any
statics from cases in the same subject from other courts and what happened if
they absolved some one of their insider trading charges, no they don’t? They don’t
even present statistics or any sort of hard evidence what happened to people who
did get convicted what happened to insider trading. They could have presented
evidence other countries courts for comparisons for what might happen.
No comments:
Post a Comment