Fight Club: Zero Hedge, Matt Taibbi Knock Out Goldman, CNBC 17 comments
an article to
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
Over the past month or so, I have been following the Fight Club brawl between Dennis Kneale at media goliath CNBC and Tyler Durden at indie blog Zero Hedge. In Round One, like a shocking incident of spontaneous combustion, Kneale went on a rant calling top indie finance blogs such as Zero Hedge a bunch of idiots who “live in their mothers’ basements.”
In Round Two, Kneale dishonestly represented an invitation to debate Tyler Durden on the air. After Kneale declined Tyler’s renewed invitation to debate in an objective third-party arena, we judged Rounds One and Two in favor of Zero Hedge.
Another “hated” indie journalist is Rolling Stone editor Matt Taibbi. Matt exploded on the Wall Street most-emailed list after dropping detailed and easy to read accounts of how the financial collapse occurred and who was behind the great scam.
I interviewed Taibbi a few weeks ago and he responded to Goldman Sach’s (GS) non-denial denial of his accusations in “The Great American Bubble Machine”. As with Kneale, haters from major media outlets took Goldman’s PR cue and immediately branded Taibbi as a rogue conspiracy theorist.
For example, Megan McArdle blogged a piece for The Atlantic in which she dismissed Taibbi as not having her financial pedigree and misrepresented Taibbi’s work as naively blaming “one person or group” for being “powerful enough to take down a whole system” (Taibbi’s article “The Big Takeover” is a laundry list of the culprits involved). Most importantly, McArdle’s half-baked opinion is at odds with Congress who seems to have enough facts to start reeling in most of the people Taibbi (and Zero Hedge) have fingered. Those are the indisputable results of excellent reporting.
Now that Zero Hedge and Matt Taibbi have officially won the Fight Club battle with their critics and mudslingers, we should all ask ourselves whether Kneale and McArdle’s behavior is an expression of something much more important: major media losing market and mind share to more nimble and thorough reporters willing to do the job of the First Amendment. Apparently there’s some validity to my thesis because although at first we were not quite sure why the largest financial cable channel was wasting air-time inciting WWE-style smack downs, last week we learned that CNBC viewership was down a whopping 28%!
As a businessman who runs a financial media site, I think CNBC’s new Jerry Springer strategy seems like the desperate avenue taken by an eyeball-magnet which needs increasingly shocking tricks to make the audience look back a few more times while permanently emigrating to more meaningful pastures. And, as with Lot’s wife, those looking back are only receiving crap that will turn them into salt.
Are people sick and tired of losing money because they have been duped by entertainers posing as journalists? Are sites like Minyanville and Zero Hedge slowly dealing TV a TKO like newspapers and other print media? Barry Ritholtz at The Big Picture has shared how he thinks we can fix financial TV. Now it’s your turn. Join the conversation (comment below) and let your voice be heard.
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication in the last week
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Those with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last week
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,
as ranked by their peers-
1
User 353732
-
2
Moon Kil Woong
-
3
doubleguns
-
4
optionsgirl
-
5
Mayascribe
Top Commenters » -
1
-
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most activeSee all
Instabloggers.
Top Instabloggers » -
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
Of course they will attack. If the truth threatens GE, they will put the kibosh down. If an idea threatens an advertiser, then they blow the horn for phalanx positions.
Walter Cronkite died a few weeks ago, but true journalism and reporting the news died a few decades ago.
Media power DEACTIVATE!
As for reporting the news. If you caught the health care special on Squawk Box last Thursday you learned quite a bit. Politicians from both parties, former HHS Secretaries, drug company CEO's, health care officials, etc. all discussing the future of health care. It was fascinating stuff, but no one likes to talk about that, they prefer to focus on some reporter they don't like and bash the whole station.
Lastly, I also find the idea that various blog sites provide fair and accurate information without any biases all in the name of the First Amendment laughable.
I certainly hope so. They may be the best green shoot our economy has, and certainly something worth cultivating to maturity.
As far as: "Lastly, I also find the idea that various blog sites provide fair and accurate information without any biases all in the name of the First Amendment laughable." I too laugh but evidently not for the same reason. My laughter is because of their bias. That and watching the objects of their scorn try to cling to some scrap of cover after being correctly called to account for their outrageous and contemptible conduct.
As far as GS .. What can you say .. They are Government Sachs.. They can do watever they want ..
As for Larry, above, if you have bias on one side, dont you like we need it on the other? And do you think the other 99% of Wallstreet watchs CNBC? Its for the 80 million people that have some sort of investment in the markets.
When things are rosy the truth is welcomed - and entertaining. When things are bleak, truth is not very entertaining and thus without luster for the "Entertainment Outlets".
No One Likes The Prophets Of Doom - Only The Wise Heed The Warning.
Thank Goodness For The Internet !!!
Debate Is The Distillation Of Reality.
Views Untested Are Worthless.
Second, you failed to address the issue that CNBC has spent an increasing amount of time on WWE and Tabloid style rhetoric.
Third, you did not explain how CNBC provides excellent coverage of the markets and helped investors avoid the downturn.
Fourth, you did not address CNBC's 28%, yes 28%, loss of viewership (I think Larry Kudlow is down 40-something percent).
Fifth, if CNBC is so great, I ask one simple question: why do 99% of all the shops on Wall St. keep it on mute?
Yes, you nailed me. I am biased because I run an independent media site. And CNBC is biased because they are a media conglomerate. And everyone in the world has a bias because they have some relative identity too. Not a big revelation ...
On Aug 03 04:20 PM SSALarry wrote:
> Pretty funny article, I am sure the CNBC big wigs sit around during
> the day worrying about Zero Hedge and/or Minyanville, which 99 out
> of 100 people on the street have never heard of. In addition, if
> you are going to score a fight you are supposed to be unbiased, I
> don't believe that is the case here.
>
> As for reporting the news. If you caught the health care special
> on Squawk Box last Thursday you learned quite a bit. Politicians
> from both parties, former HHS Secretaries, drug company CEO's, health
> care officials, etc. all discussing the future of health care. It
> was fascinating stuff, but no one likes to talk about that, they
> prefer to focus on some reporter they don't like and bash the whole
> station.
>
> Lastly, I also find the idea that various blog sites provide fair
> and accurate information without any biases all in the name of the
> First Amendment laughable.
On Aug 03 05:15 PM Rookie_SA wrote:
> I prefer Bloomberg to CNBC ..
> As far as GS .. What can you say .. They are Government Sachs.. They
> can do watever they want ..
On Aug 04 02:45 AM PainfullyAware wrote:
> Truth is a tough thing to come by when ratings are weighted to "Entertainment".
>
>
> When things are rosy the truth is welcomed - and entertaining. When
> things are bleak, truth is not very entertaining and thus without
> luster for the "Entertainment Outlets".
>
> No One Likes The Prophets Of Doom - Only The Wise Heed The Warning.
>
>
> Thank Goodness For The Internet !!!
>
> Debate Is The Distillation Of Reality.
>
> Views Untested Are Worthless.
As for CNBC, they have been an earnest participant in the 'over capacity' game that has wrecked the global economy and, therefore, are receiving there just due.
i would add, I find it hysterical (in a pathetic way) that their typical 'round table of experts' consists of all 'journalists' who happen to share the same boss.
Nice job.
Long live Zero Hedge, Calculated Risk, Naked Capitalism, Le Café Américain and MISH'S Global Economic Trend Analysis. For those of us choosing to take the red pill, and see what truly is, they are a godsend.
censorship by taking on our dictator Pres. Barack Castro Chavez Ahmindedajab Ayatollah Putin Jong IL Hussein Obama during his "Tea Party Rant". Did the White House ever make good on Robert putz Gibbs'
invitation to Santelli? Anyway, if GE wasn't so beholding to O amd his mob, and Immelt and Zucker had any synapses firing in their heads, they would let Santelli and other rabble rousers question all the corporate
communist crap creeping around us and destroying our country at a breakneck pace. That would be a ratings rocket booster. Conflicts of interest are a bitch.
I have a few reasons why viewership may be down at CNBC and I’m not talking about the obvious cheerleading that takes place.
I saw an advertisement for a special on the Marijuana trade and didn’t realize just how important this is for our current economy, sure hope they get the Cocaine and Heroin special on and maybe we can gather the family around for some real live drug war killings and how this may be positive for the bottom line of funeral homes and private coroners.
I saw an advertisement for a special on the porn business and thought how positive this is for everyone involved and maybe the human sex traffickers around the world were taking notes so they could maybe learn how to get to the big time someday and have such a fine news organization interview them.
I saw an advertisement for a special on high end prostitution and again what a positive message, I suppose the Hepatitis and HIV rates are lower amongst those who bang for more money? Is it possible that 1000 as opposed to 100 ensures a clean and mentally stable whore?
How’s this all related to our economy, our deficit, fiscal stimulus, earnings season, tax obligations? I’m not really sure but I think I’ll get really high, slap some porn in the DVD, and go take a walk on the wild side.
Thanks CNBC, xoxoxo
Second - The CNBC Investigates specials are, for the most part, run at the 10 p.m. eastern time slot. CNBC has had difficulty finding programing for that hour. Various talk shows, financial help shows have failed to garner ratings. Therefore, they have produced some specials that have delivered some good ratings. Everyone mentions the high-end prostitution and marijuana specials, but they don't mention the McDonalds, American Airlines and House of Cards specials, all of which were quite good and all of which received solid reviews. Like any network they need to deliver ratings to stay in existence.
Third - As a long time market investor I feel I get great information from CNBC. I pay no attention to the various market prognosticators that appear during the day to name drop a stock they like. I do pay attention to the market sentiment, economic news, political issues that may alter markets, and analysis of various sectors (energy, tech, health care, etc.). When a major economic number is released before the markets open, CNBC will have various well known market participants, like a Bill Gross, offering analysis. Where else am I going to find that immediate feedback.
Fourth - Barry Ritholtz answers this better than I can, but I think he is spot on. www.ritholtz.com/blog/.../
Fifth - I don't know, perhaps you should ask them, my guess would be it would be hard to actually concentrate on your work, hold conversations with fellow workers while having CNBC blaring their conversations in the back ground.
Thanks, Larry. First, I never said every blog or internet source is objective and unbiased. That's would obviously be ridiculous.
Second, you failed to address the issue that CNBC has spent an increasing amount of time on WWE and Tabloid style rhetoric.
Third, you did not explain how CNBC provides excellent coverage of the markets and helped investors avoid the downturn.
Fourth, you did not address CNBC's 28%, yes 28%, loss of viewership (I think Larry Kudlow is down 40-something percent).
Fifth, if CNBC is so great, I ask one simple question: why do 99% of all the shops on Wall St. keep it on mute?