More Heads on the CNBC Chopping Block as Financial Media Landscape Shifts 26 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
Inertia is a powerful force. The longer we repeat anything, the harder to break the habit. Apparently, the mainstream financial media is having some trouble recognizing that this is their intervention.
If you take time to talk with friends and colleagues about how they got fleeced in 2008, most (if not all — I’m trying to be extra fair) will tell you how the financial media told them everything was fine, don’t sell, don’t panic, buy the dips, etc. Given that most people have jobs which require them to rely on financial professionals for financial advice, we should expect those “experts” to tell their clients the truth. In the law, it’s called “fiduciary duty.”
So, once again, we are not surprised to see people voting with their wallets and attention spans (See “Financial Media Coup d’Etat“). Zero Hedge reports,
Nielsen reported a 50% plunge in CNBC vierwership in October year over year. Specially, CNBC has experienced a massive 52% decline in overall viewers during business day hours (5 am – 7 pm), and a not much better 49% drop in its demo (25-54) in the month of October as compared to last year. Specific shows that are likely to follow the fate of Dennis Kneale’s recently canceled 8pm gobbledygook are likely the Kudlow Report and Mad Money, which are down 59% and 56%, respectively.
My sources at GE tell me there is a lot of drama behind the scenes. More heads are on the chopping block at CNBC. However, I am not sure why it’s become such an issue. Simply provide solid financial journalism, and people will pay attention because their 401(k) will look like it can sustain a retirement. Provide game shows (e.g., Mad Money), skewed perspectives, and a publicity pulpit for private interests, and the results speak for themselves.
Brands are labels. You can put the CNBC brand on entertainment or award-winning journalism. I for one hope the executives at GE and producers at CNBC treat this exciting time like a professional sports off-season: release the overpaid non-producers, bring in the best free agents money can buy, and draft the future stars. That’s meritocracy. That’s capitalism at its finest.
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 26 comments:
It would be nice to see some different "personalities" but it doesn't matter one way or the other really, I only watch when I'm travelling for business (especially internationally when it, bloomberg and CNN are the only english options). I'd like to see them allow fewer people with "interests" to come on and basically pump what they either own or sell.
Understanding that the average viewer is a basically a long buy and hold investor, the template fits their audience. However, the constant bullish sentiment from many of the commentators and hosts gets irritating.
Kudlow and Belski were bullish all the way down even saying, "There will be no recession . . . "
The reporting was basically a repeat of the sentiment during the dot com bubble just a few years ago when the average investor got screwed before.
"Fool me once . . . . "
I would like some more in depth interviews.
And tired of the sarcasm and cutesy women who somehow all look alike.
And so much data constantly on the screen is a bother.
My watching is down more than 50% and very often with sound off.
Day after day they kept stating it can't get much worse....wrong!
Day after day gold can't get much higher...now the mantra is how much higher will it go as if it was a game show.
I just dont watch them much.
On Oct 28 11:01 AM mariposa wrote:
> For me one reason I listen less is the many times they have people
> yelling over each other, and the relentless advertising.
> I would like some more in depth interviews.
> And tired of the sarcasm and cutesy women who somehow all look alike.
>
> And so much data constantly on the screen is a bother.
> My watching is down more than 50% and very often with sound off.
Rather, it is designed to entertain and SELL. It constantly sells the books, views and products of those who appear. Some of those who appear are really nice people in my estimation. I particularly like Mark Haines and Erin Burnett. She asks the same line of questions as do the other women but comes across as a person who has no axe to grind. Mark on the other hand has many axes to grind, and most of them are valid and on point.
Faber is kind of neutral and reports pretty much what his research finds. Let me not forget to mention STEVE LIESMAN [sp]. He is a guy who really knows his stuff. Is he always right? No! But does he use facts to come to generally logical and correct conclusions? Yes.
Those I classify as "having an agenda", or seeking personal agrandizement, or selling themselves as superior beings are just so predictable or worthless. Cramer's a clown; Joe K., ia rather conservative and everything he says is tainted by that view; Kudlow is so full of himself and is so arrogant that listening to him is really a waste of one's time.
I won't take the space to comment on the others who appear except to mention that Maria Bartiroma is as full of herself as Kudlow. I guess I can't omit Sharon Epperson and Rick Santelli. They are useless. She has little understanding of energy and he is so limited by his archconservative views that his knowledge of the "bond market" becomes irrelevant.
As for commercials, there are just too many. What is needed here is a PBS Financial station staffed by people who really know about matters financial and who can keep it interesting without sinking to "circus" level.
David Faber's off prime time specials are excellent. Erin Burnett needs to be cloned so her demeanor can be on tube 9-5. Most of the other women are average or below at best. As for Cramer, his time has also passed. Mad Money is just that. Extra dough one can simply throw to the winds of the stock market. His recommendations shouldn't be taken seriously.
On balance CNBC has been going down the same slide path as the parent company GE. Just hanging on.
Joe K...Larry ...>Faber...are good. But Please cut down on split screens 6 ways and all the SHOUTING! Too much glitz as well.
Flashing this and flashing that, after 20 minutes the eyes are strained and I have a headache. Just give me communitive talk, like we were sitting in a living room...good information.....and the ratings and commercials will take care of themselves. Be nice to have Ted David and Liz back, they talked WITH us, not AT us.
CNBS has gone from reporting to hysteria whether you want the market to go or down. Personally I feel they are extremely biased towards the negative side - negativity sells - please don't forget that jerk Dylan Rattigas and his in your face crapolla. Either way if they just stuck with the news and not their friggen' opinions I would be satisfied. Who died and left them in charge?
Otherwise she rates a D-!
media consumer habits.
There could be a lot to that. The time lag could also have to do
with that people only much later figure out what benefits and
what not.
For a general look back at the worst financial pundits, the famous
Peter Schiff video is still the best, there is a bunch of them:
www.youtube.com/watch?...
On Oct 28 01:17 PM jg1945 wrote:
> The women are fine, except maybe Maria, she's too full of herself.
>
> Joe K...Larry ...>Faber...are good. But Please cut down on split
> screens 6 ways and all the SHOUTING! Too much glitz as well.
> Flashing this and flashing that, after 20 minutes the eyes are strained
> and I have a headache. Just give me communitive talk, like we were
> sitting in a living room...good information.....and the ratings and
> commercials will take care of themselves. Be nice to have Ted David
> and Liz back, they talked WITH us, not AT us.