Interesting. . . Mav. . .Network journalistic responsibility is to report the news. And it is true that bad news attracts a larger following than good. And while this premise can be applied to CNN or the NBC Nightly News. . . CNBC SHOULD have a different set of priorities and principals.
Any news regarding the stock market SHOULD be handled in the same way as with political parties. Equal time for the two political parties. . . though loosely enforced. . .was enacted BECAUSE of the power that the television media had on the public. Likewise, it is a two party market. There are bulls and there are bears. Bears love the bad news. [Reminds me of a great movie about a baseball team] . . While the bulls love the good news. But any television news team covering the markets must not simply be sensitive to both parties. They must be held accountable.
One sided reporting moves the markets. There is no disputing that fact. Such reporting is hype. Plain and simple. If the statement never changes and the opposing side is not given an equal chance to stage a rebuttal, then call it what it is. . . HYPE! [Remember hype can be bearish as well as bullish].
The proper way to handle this would be to first give CNBC the opportunity to "do the right thing". . .and shift to an "equal time" philosophy on its own. . . but should they ignore such reason, we could resort to applying pressure. . . .by demanding that the SEC enforce hype laws with regard to television. Slap a fine on CNBC for their selection of analysts with identical bearish views. . . forcing CNBC to split the time spent in analysis with bullish analysts.
Add up the number of minutes spent on Computer Associates coverage yesterday. . . it certainly helped tank the stock or at least kept it from staging a comeback. Now spend that same number of minutes discussing whichever stock is the strongest mover and watch what happens!
In January of 1999, hundreds of short-sellers concerted in a chat room to file formal complaints with CNBC for hyping Perfumania. . . citing the fact that the stock was under $5 the week prior, yet the CEO was scheduled for an appearance coinciding with the launch of their new website. . . . with threats of lawsuits for any further mentioning of PRFM. . . CNBC mysteriously halted all mention of the stock. . . the long awaited news hit. . the website opened and CNBC remained absolutely silent.
Since that event, there has been a distinct decline in coverage time of stocks with the 'highest percentage gains'. . . [remember the $1 momo plays that would rocket to $20 dollars on CNBC discussion. . .the more they discussed, the higher they flew?] However, there continues to be discussion throughout the day of stocks with the highest percentage losers. . .such as was done with CA yesterday. . .or CTXS and HLIT last week, etc. etc. etc. . . they seem to love the losers. . . yet continue ignoring the percentage winners.
For CNBC to stop moving the markets, they would have to stop reporting the news. And that is extreme and unnecessary. But in order to be FAIR to the markets, it is my opinion that they be required to provide equal time for bulls and bears on each and every issue presented. Where it benefits one side, equal time should be required for the benefit of the other side.
It is a two-sided market. Treat it as such.
Complying with this demand may require more in-depth analysis, instead of the 1 minute nutshell views we hear throughout the day. In my opinion, that would be a good thing. . . .There are many solutions. . . pick one.
Rande Is
. . . opinions are my own. |
