Factzplz

In Defense of CNBC (Sort Of)

Excellent analysis -- I agree 100% and have been saying it for years. This writer is another CNBC shill.



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