> Faber also mentioned that the SEC inquiry might include a review of > short selling immediately prior to the release of Tice's reports.
Yes, this was the second report to this effect. This is obviously of great interest to all concerned. It will be interesting to see where the primary focus of this nonpublic, informal inquiry is centered. It was very interesting to hear CNBC suggest that stock price manipulation by short interests may be of high concern during this inquiry.
> You can't fault CNBC for covering TYC on a day it's down 25% on 100 > million plus shares.
I wholeheartedly concur, but I was in no way faulting CNBC for covering this event. My point of contention is the lack of impartiality they offer. (e.g. The way in which they insert subtle changes to facts at hand.)
Case in point: We all know Tyco is undergoing an "nonpublic, informal inquiry" by the SEC. But, CNBC is quick to go beyond that and call it an "SEC INVESTIGATION!!!" They did this repeatedly. Instead of carefully reporting precisely what was happening to Tyco, they repeatedly substituted the ominous term "SEC INVESTIGATION" again and again instead of the more reserved and correct "nonpublic, informal inquiry."
Am I just quibbling over semantics here? You be the judge, but I venture to guess everyone here knows exactly what I'm alluding to.
If you're in a crowded theater and scream "FIRE" because someone lights a cigarette, you will generate a large scale panic. Was there a fire? Well, yes, but not the kind of fire that people envision when they hear someone scream "fire."
Forgive me for using the above analogy. I know you surely understand my contention with CNBC's reporting priorities.
BTW, we're digging out from 20 inches of new snow in the past 6 hours!
Cheers,
John in Iceland |
