Jorj, I saw the exchange you are talking about, and while I also don't remember the exact words, I do remember feeling disturbed by it--and I normally enjoy watching David and Joe on Squawk Box. While I think the exchange fell short of an actual threat to punish companies that don't return CNBC's phone calls, I didn't think it was right to insinuate on the air (and I don't think it is at all hyperbole to interpret it as an insinuation) that something was terribly wrong because Brooks Automation didn't return Joe's call. There are lots of legitimate reasons why the company may not be ready to talk to the media about its plummeting stock price--a desire to fully gather all the facts about whatever was causing the decline, for example. Believe it or not, practicing prudence and plain caution, and watching out for the interests of the shareholders, doesn't necessarily mean making hasty, on-the-record statements to time-constrained broadcast journalists the first chance you get. There could be something bad going on at Brooks, the price drop obviously isn't a good sign, but I don't think it is good journalism to aggravate an already sensitive situation by blithely making a blanket statement--but firmly in the Brooks context--that companies that don't return phone calls in these situations are very likely companies that shouldn't be owned.
How about: "The company didn't return my phone call, they are evidently not ready to make a statement about the matter." Isn't that a little more professional? |
