A company called Trump Media is having some problems and they are blaming other people for it. They want someone to look into how these other people are making money by betting against their company. A man named Herb Greenberg thinks that Trump Media is just trying to distract everyone from their own problems. He compares this situation to another company called Overstock that had a similar problem in the past. Read from source...

1. The title is misleading and sensationalized: "Beware Of What You Wish For" implies that Trump Media's call for a short-selling probe is a AIgerous or harmful wish that could backfire on them, when in reality it is just a request to investigate potential fraud or market manipulation.
2. The article compares the situation with Overstock.com, which is not an apples-to-apples comparison, as Overstock was accused of allowing "naked shorting" or selling shares that did not actually exist, while Trump Media's allegations are more vague and unspecified.
3. The article quotes Herb Greenberg, who seems to have a negative bias against Trump Media and its CEO David Nunes, as he calls their call for a probe a "diversion tactic" and implies that they are crying wolf or trying to distract from other issues. This is without providing any evidence or reasoning for why this is the case, or considering the possibility that Trump Media may have legitimate concerns about the short-selling of its shares.
4. The article also quotes David Nunes himself, who claims that he has evidence of illegal and manipulative activities by the eight firms accused of short-selling his company's stock, but does not provide any details or proof of this claim either. This makes it seem like the article is simply repeating accusations without verifying them, which is a poor journalistic practice.
5. The article ends with a cryptic warning to Trump Media: "Beware of what you wish for" because the short-sellers may end up being the actual victors in this situation, or because they may face negative consequences from their actions. This is a vague and unsatisfying conclusion that does not offer any insight or resolution to the issue at hand.

Overall, the article seems to be biased against Trump Media and its call for a short-selling probe, without providing enough evidence or reasoning to support its claims or counterarguments. It relies on sensationalized language, unsubstantiated accusations, and irrelevant comparisons to paint a negative picture of Trump Media's actions.