In Defense of CNBC (Sort Of) 37 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
Well, someone has to stick their neck out and defend CNBC, so here goes.
I’m sure you all either watched the smackdown Jon Stewart put on Jim Cramer, have read about it, heard some radio talk show discussion on your way to work or in some other manner had the episode forced upon your consciousness. If none of these apply, then congratulations, you are one of the few who truly have a healthy perspective on life. Those who fall into the last category should quickly jump to some other blog.
The buzz Friday morning was that not only Cramer but CNBC were exposed as the shams they are. That describes some of the tamer reviews. More than a few pundits used the opportunity to declare CNBC dangerous and not deserving of the trust that their franchise supposedly invests them with.
Fortunately, most reserved a few choice words for Jon Stewart. I’ve felt all along that he was not only shooting fish in a barrel with this whole thing but drugging them before he put them in the barrel so they would swim slower and be easier to shoot. But the point here isn’t to go after him.
I’ll be the first to agree that CNBC has more than its share of clowns and Cramer may head the parade. I find it very hard to listen to Larry Kudlow pretend to interview people by asking for replies to his editorial positions, and the multiple boxes with the talking heads trying to talk over each other is simply not worth watching.
But over the years I’ve had an awful lot of people I know ask me to interpret something they heard on CNBC. People who wouldn’t know an ETF from a MBS have had their curiosity piqued by something they heard while having a morning cup of coffee or channel surfing after work. These aren’t people who generally read blogs like this. They’re schoolteachers, restaurant managers, retirees, just normal folks who have a little curiosity and want to learn a little more about the world outside of their frame of reference.
That’s not such a bad thing, is it? CNBC stirred up something in someone’s imagination and caused them to seek a little more knowledge. Kind of a good thing when you think about it. Certainly harmless.
Is Cramer or anyone else on the network who might talk up or down a stock really that dangerous? I doubt seriously that very many people rush out and buy based on the recommendations they hear. For every one of those who do, there may be as many who hear the conflicting points of view and figure that some professional advice might be worth the cost. If you can show me some hard data that these guys are leading people to foolish investments then I’ll change my mind. Until then, it’s just idle speculation.
It’s become a fad in the media to kick around CNBC. Everyone has a snarky remark and avers that they don't watch the show, yet their encyclopedic knowledge of the cast of characters that appear throughout the day belies their avowed disinterest. Yeah, the content is basic and often of questionable value, but our best economists have recently been accused of much the same. Is CNBC that much worse?
The shows entertain and to a small extent inform and educate people. Come to think of it that’s two more things than The Daily Show does.
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
David Fry
-
2
TraderMark
-
3
Don Dion
-
4
Cliff Wachtel
-
5
Mike Havrilla
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 37 comments:
It is not that CNBC were bullish on some stocks that went down it is that they could not be bothered to do basic research before making their bullish projections. They weren't and still do not question the statements of any of their Corporate CEO guests. They have become nothing more than a cheerleader but sell themselves as professional analysts.
Both Reuters and Bloomberg are guilty of the same thing. For example I had a conversation with the head of Reuter Europe in January of 2008 and asked him why they had not covered the foolish lending in the sub prime market before it was too late. First he said that nobody knew and further it was not their business. The conversation turned decidedly cold when I pointed out the many analysts were highlighting the problem two years earlier and they simply were refused access to the networks. It ended when I asked where or not Reuters had an obligation to report actual news or just spread corporate public relation statements.
Stewart hit my belief spot on. If the financial networks advertised themselves as knowledgeable financial analysts they should do serious analysis. If they want to advertise themselves as just another public relations channel for corporate messages than they can continue as they are.
Rick the Banker
The Good:
Squawk Box: Informative and, in the case of Joe Kernen, drily hilarious.
Rick Santelli: Tells it like it is, although that "Cheshire grin" smile of his is a little creepy
Steve Liesman: Good economics guy
The Mixed:
Cramer: Can be very funny, especially some of his "throwaway lines" at the beginning of his show, but completely worthless on specific stock advice.
Kudlow: Kind-of likeable (perhaps because he's willing to have opposing viewpoints on his show), despite the fact that he's a perma-bull
The Makes-Me-Want-to-Puke-...
Maria: Dumber than toast.
Dennis Kneale: Odiously stupid & bad; this idiot was in recession-denial ALL the way down. Stupid people should not be smug; I guarantee that every time this guy comes on, CNBC loses ratings.
Don Luskin (the frequent Kudlow guest): Exactly the same description as for Dennis Kneale (above), except that-- fortunately-- he's on the channel a lot less often.
There's some good reporting on CNBC, and then there's opinion giving pretending to be reporting. Between 10-2, there is way too much of that.
The new CNBC commercial:
CNBC: We helped you get thru it!!
Yes folks.
We here at CNBC helped you to get thru it. We protected your money. We told you what to buy, what to sell and by God everything we said came true.
When Dennis Kneale called you all "fraidy cats" in the summer of 08 and that you should be buying financials, you should have been buying (oops they fell 90%)
When Cramer said "Bye bye bear market" in late July of 08, you should have been buying (oops the market went down 40% since then)
When Don Luskin on Kudlow's show said in the spring of 2007 that "This whole atmosphere of doom and gloom and the notion that subprime is going to open up a hole in the earth is just ridiculous" you should have been buying more (ooops Subprime destroyed everything)
When Cramer said it was safe to buy banks again once the Fed cut rates to zero in October of 2008 you should have bought (oops banks fell 50% after that)
Yes folks we here at CNBC will help you make monsy, help you survive this bear market and preserve your wealth...........ofcou... we do all this AFTER you have lost the first 35% of your money and AFTER we have been yelling buy buy buy all the way down from DoW 14K
CNBC: 20 years of deception with zero accountability.
Those are the facts my friends. Jon Stewart did have one thing dead right: There is a HUGE conflict of interest between CNBC, the financial world and the companies of the world. In the end, CNBC is a business. They want ratings, and need ratings.
Their real main objective: To get the mom and pops of the world to invest. That is it. It is as simple as that. Companies, mutual funds, investment banks, etc, etc, rely on CNBC to send them business. It is all inter-connected. It is all one big interlinked marketing scheme.
<<You know, if you stop watching them, they'll go away.>>
I used to think that. But you know what? They are never going away.
Regardless of legal disclaimers, CNBC, its anchors, and their so called "experts" they tout, are responsible for billions of dollars of investor losses in the past year.
I know, I know. People have a responsibility for their own actions, etc.
But in this world, where people care more about not missing the season premiere of "Dancing with the Stars" than trying to better their own lives and take accountability for their own actions, the news media has to be held accountable since they have the ability to reach such a wide audience. Plus, as a rule, people (atleast in this country) like to be told what to do, what to think, what to believe, and look to CNBC for what they think is real helpful advice. Instead they get hype and outright guesses from CNBC.
If you have been watching the Fox Business Channel, your on line broker should lock you out for 48 hours so you can de-tox.
The producers of these programs don't perform much investigative reporting. They do little but report on news already sources by another organization.
The question is to whom are they targeting their programming?
I for one want leading edge, financial new programming, that fully provides both sides of any particular topic or subject.
And have written CNBC about their producers allowing the so called news anchors and pundent's spew their own personal opinions and bias like their placing the almighty's design in your hands. The programming has been going downhill for at least 2 years.
This is not financial news just some biased, often condescending, bloviating person, with a microphone on a national television program, frequently spewing such nonsense it's easy to call them out on their inaccuracy and hypocrisy.
I am watching less and less of their stuff. Enough to get riled up with them again, send off a note to the organization's appropriate web site then change the channel.
For real, as unbiased as possible, financial reporting on cable news, one has to watch Bloomberg Financial.
If CNBC does not change their way of doing business, I will cast my vote and stop returning to visit the channel for good.
audience. Thanks CNBC. And no thanks to the writer of the article. John Stewert does more good in the world than Jim Cramer and his fellow manipulators ever will. They should all go away and get real jobs.
1. quote: For real, as unbiased as possible, financial reporting on cable news, one has to watch Bloomberg Financial.
Comment: I do often when I get tired of being yelled at
2. quote: Cramer's pics are worthless
Comment: Cramer is right 49% and his picks overall do a little better than the market. However when I follow Big Jim's picks my pics of his pics is 49% right which averages to 24.5% so
a. I follow his 25 rules of investing instead of his pics
b. I listen to the tone not the day to day. For example in January when Cat was 38 Cramer stated
"Buy CAT but not just now"
I don't think he knew anything more than I did on that specific I just figured that's a sell wrapped in a caution flag based on history of the 82 recession when Regan's favorite stocks initially tanked.
The daily show did drug the fish in the barrel with clip 212 and 216. I would like to see the daily show host switch with Cramer for a week.
Get serious. Follow the money. And 'the money' is gamed by an inverted “economy of empire” which very temporarily sustains itself (like Bernie’s PONZI) through negative externality cost dumping. Fortunately, Obama knows this and is ‘getting it done’ by shutting down the ruling-elite Empire’s expropriation of wealth ‘gravy train’ on the UBS express.
The “economics of Empire” is an economics of the Ponzi ---- which is to say, “it’s not economics at all but rather looting” --- just as economics Nobel laureate, George Akerlof said back in 2002 of the Bush administration’s government policy: “This is not normal government economic policy, but rather a form of looting”.
Yes, George, not only the economic policy of empire is “looting”, but the entire political-economic and geopolitical policy of any government which has morphed into empire (like ours) is nothing but looting and hierarchical power preservation.
All Empires have always been such and always will be. A people and their country can never reform empire (just like you can’t reform scorpions or cancer --- since it’s in their nature), but ‘the people’ can only successfully diagnose and excise the cancer of empire.
It’s well past time for the continuation of the American Revolution against this ‘Vichy’ Empire hidden within our own land. While it’s more difficult to detect than the old Empire of King George and his highly visible ‘Red Coats’, the leading of our minute-men have already studied the pathology report and completed the diagnosis of this hidden empire’s metastasis and now the call has already gone out to the skilled and patriotic surgeons. “To arms, to arms, all ye minute-men surgeons”.
“One if by see, and two if by guile”
“The Empire is coming. The empire is coming. To arms minute-men, the empire is HERE.”
CNBC is not much different than analysts who get on earnings calls and lob softballs at the CEOs to knock out of the park.
Somewhere along our history the 4th estate has become an extension of those holding the power. Unfortunately, our system of democracy and capitalism requires an agressive 4th estate.
why? the only advertisers they can get are "rag-peddlers" e.g. the shammy cloth, or snake oil daytrading brokers, e.g. E-trade, whose ad showing a baby barfing at the camera is supposed to turn who on? new mothers who just lost their mortgage?
without a dish network dvr, it is not watchable, without fast forwarding past the ads and past the repulsive "reporters" like that bridge troll, the bald headed obama butt-wort steve liesman. also every time i see bartiromo, i wonder why she wasn't fired for illegal trading just before she went on camera with a story that affected her prior trade.
by the way, one of the rare good guys, rick santelli, has not been seen for two trading days, thu. and fri. [uh oh, its friday the 13th] -- is he on "leave" or worse?
Here's how you use CNBC to your advantage: use your own mind and challenge the pundits' positions!
People need to be warned about CNBC.
The thing I hate most in CNBC are the big noises created when new charts are brought on to the screen. Very annoying.
Bloomberg TV is less entertaining but a bit more factual and less pushy about investment ideas. That is were I stay parked.
For real news you go to FOX? That's funny. The RNN? (Republican News Network). That's like saying, when I want to read a real non fiction novel I read Dr. Seuss. Hey....During WW2 the Germans thought they were getting "real news" too. The free world knew better. It was propaganda.
CNBC's biggest advertisers are brokers and discount brokers. Anybody but me ever notice that everyone on CNBC tells everyone ALL DAY LONG that "buy-and-hold" investing is dead? And even if YOU happen to think so too...you know there's a lot of people - a LOT - who believe in long-term buy-and-hold investing. Wouldn't be very good business for CNBC's advertisers if common-sense buying great comapanies intending to keep them for the long term was ever allowed to be given much airtime, though, would it? If a lot of people that get all or most of their information from TV got screwed I'm sorry for them. But every channel on TV has an agenda.
People who want to invest should read a lot about investing first and immunize themselves against the bullshit.
Let's face it, Stewart has no claim to fame in the financial arena, unless his 75 year old mother losing money counts. The only thing he has going for him is a platform. Why didn't anybody else with a platform (print, radio or TV) do this?
(a) They don't know
(b) They don't care
(c) They think CNBC is great
What does that say about the standard of financial journalism in this country?
It'd be easy to do. Just take every recommendation he makes and create a portfolio of it. For ease of computation, make it an equal-weighted portfolio...say $100 in each recommendation. (Fractional shares are OK, this is an index.) Start the index at zero. At the end of the first day, its value would be the money spent on his recommendations plus or minus the closing value of the "shares" bought on account of his recommmendations. If he says to sell, record the proceeds from that and take the "shares" out of the portfolio. I'm leaving out a few details, but you get the idea.
And then, just keep it running every day. Print its value in the daily Cramer article. If you want to get fancy, create a ticker and display it real-time.
I bet it would become one of the most-read features on the entire site.
On Mar 14 05:09 AM Rick the Banker wrote:
> YOU HAVE TOTALLY MISSED THE POINT
>
> It is not that CNBC were bullish on some stocks that went down it
> is that they could not be bothered to do basic research before making
> their bullish projections. They weren't and still do not question
> the statements of any of their Corporate CEO guests. They have become
> nothing more than a cheerleader but sell themselves as professional
> analysts.
>
> Both Reuters and Bloomberg are guilty of the same thing. For example
> I had a conversation with the head of Reuter Europe in January of
> 2008 and asked him why they had not covered the foolish lending in
> the sub prime market before it was too late. First he said that nobody
> knew and further it was not their business. The conversation turned
> decidedly cold when I pointed out the many analysts were highlighting
> the problem two years earlier and they simply were refused access
> to the networks. It ended when I asked where or not Reuters had an
> obligation to report actual news or just spread corporate public
> relation statements.
>
> Stewart hit my belief spot on. If the financial networks advertised
> themselves as knowledgeable financial analysts they should do serious
> analysis. If they want to advertise themselves as just another public
> relations channel for corporate messages than they can continue as
> they are.
>
> Rick the Banker
On Mar 14 05:09 AM Rick the Banker wrote:
> YOU HAVE TOTALLY MISSED THE POINT
>
> It is not that CNBC were bullish on some stocks that went down it
> is that they could not be bothered to do basic research before making
> their bullish projections. They weren't and still do not question
> the statements of any of their Corporate CEO guests. They have become
> nothing more than a cheerleader but sell themselves as professional
> analysts.
>
> Both Reuters and Bloomberg are guilty of the same thing. For example
> I had a conversation with the head of Reuter Europe in January of
> 2008 and asked him why they had not covered the foolish lending in
> the sub prime market before it was too late. First he said that nobody
> knew and further it was not their business. The conversation turned
> decidedly cold when I pointed out the many analysts were highlighting
> the problem two years earlier and they simply were refused access
> to the networks. It ended when I asked where or not Reuters had an
> obligation to report actual news or just spread corporate public
> relation statements.
>
> Stewart hit my belief spot on. If the financial networks advertised
> themselves as knowledgeable financial analysts they should do serious
> analysis. If they want to advertise themselves as just another public
> relations channel for corporate messages than they can continue as
> they are.
>
> Rick the Banker
Not one phone call from them thanking me and not one invitation to be in a talking box. I can assure you that I won't ever again rise to their defense. Unless of course, they set me up with one of the money honeys for an evening.
We all have our price.
On Mar 15 11:52 PM Factzplz wrote:
> Excellent analysis -- I agree 100% and have been saying it for years.
> This writer is another CNBC shill.
>