Gary, Mark got me going for two reasons to be honest. One, I knew the interview at that time would cost me major bucks (when I though it would help GNET). And two, I knew Russell could of answered the Paul Allen question better than he did. But I got pissed at Mark anyway because that's the way we viewers think.
Mark IMO has toned down his interviews but I'll tell you right now, I'd never let him get hold of me. He CAN smell fear and to be honest when he nails some guy pushing a dog stock with no earnings, Mark makes me smile and he is doing a public service.
I think all guess should state what they own and when they bought it. So without mentioning any names, the guest could of said the other day "I bought a million worth of this crap last week knowing I'd be on CNBC today and I could hype it into many millions". In case you missed it, something similar happened last week and the guest sat there almost laughing as Joe pointed out that since he mentioned the "his" stock, the stock was flying, surprise, surprise.
I think if we knew these people better we would understand them better. Besides, screaming at the cable is bad for you. I couldn't have Mark's job, one day I'd say to a guest "look you SOB, you've dodged more questions about your company than Bill Clinton did about Monica. You start talking or we're going to the parking lot!" No I couldn't have Mark's job. He has to walk a thin line and he is a big guy.
Perhaps there is a reason for the way Mark asks a question, like his education: cnbc.com
Nice conversation Gary. Perhaps you and I got to know each other better and perhaps CNBC can see that viewers don't like softball questions but yet they get turned off by an interview that seems like an attack or personal.
Have a good one, looks like more snow today.
Blue |
