Grant, when you wonder why some of us here are totally put off by the recent posts by some of your buds, go back and read the title of this thread, as well as James' post that started it all. This was, for the most part, a discussion of the content of CNBC's broadcasting during the business day along w/ the manner and style they presented it in.
If this was a discussion thread re: the WSJ or IBD, it likely would stay on topics germaine to the above-mentioned content and stylings. Unfortunately, because of the visual media in which CNBC presents similar information, many have chosen to set up shop in this thread, not to praise or critique Maria, Susie, et al, for the job they do, but rather how well they fill out a sweater.
As to your point "you try to program 12 hours of original news programming every day without the occassional minor daily fiasco," nobody here is attacking the network for occasional mistakes, but rather for a gradual lowering of quality and standards. When the network chose to start emulating the format of CNN's Headline News channel and, to a lesser extent, Entertainment Tonight, they set themselves up as an easy target. Again, if the content presented on the network stayed more on financial and investment news, many would be more forgiving. But if a rumor started going around that CNBC was going to hire Tabitha Soren or Downtown Julie Brown as their next anchors, it almost wouldn't phase us anymore.
As far as your citing of the political discussions as being improper here, and therefore justifying your little friends' AOL-style chatroom ravings, think about it: if you look at the dates during which those posts were made, we were in the middle of a presidential election down here, and CNBC was in the thick of things w/ their coverage of the campaign and its relationship to the financial enivronement. Such posts were not only timely, but also created a very spirited debate that covered a lot of ground in displaying the diverse beliefs of those who transverse this thread. But hey, you're right!! That just doesn't compare w/ with an insightful discussion of whether Susie had a run in her stockings. Maybe coming from a country where governments are thrown out like garbage has shown you the light. How could we have been so wrong?
(Before you flame me on my attack on the welfare state that is Canada, I think I can be justified in saying what I did. I am a second generation American, w/ my grandparents coming from Victoria, Granum (a farm town that no longer exists not too far south from Calgary), and Montreal. I'm as conversant in Canadian politics and current affairs as I am in American. The two nations have similar problems, but Canada's drift towards socialism has created a situation that it just now is realizing as being very undesirable. So believe when I say that the average American does tend to be a little more involved in their nation's politics, as the most of us know where we don't want to be as a nation. That the content of the political discussion of late last summer and early fall didn't meet your strict, high standards does not exactly leave me weeping.)
Also re: ...the rest of us adolescents (Young Males 18 to 40, with high disposable incomes, who by the way are the most desirable demographics for broadcasters)... - I don't really know how to break this to you, but CNBC's "most desirable demographics" very likely do not include the group you list. I would strongly venture a guess that its target audience is the the working professionals (male and female), the investment community, and middle-to-upper income retirees; or to put it more simply, THOSE WHO ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE ACTIVE INVESTORS. That you would cite not CNBC's target audience, but that of a network called MTV, is laughable and only goes to prove my point for me. But I guess that it does go a long ways towards explaining the offensive nature of the sexist remarks coming from your little club.
That you and I do watch CNBC makes us the exception, rather than the rule. And that you want the network to conform to our generation's standards is ludicrous, as we are the odd ones out here, not the other way around.
While you and I are both the ideal audience for the jiggles and wiggles of MTV, I think the difference between us is that when I want to watch Jenny McCarthy or Carmen Electra in all their glory, I tend to change the channel there. When I want to concentrate on my investments, I watch CNBC. You see, w/ this little invention we call cable, instead of broadcasting, networks would be better served to focus, or narrowcast. You wouldn't watch the Golf Channel for the Red Shoe Diaries, would you? Well, I don't know, maybe you would.
Truman, James, Betty, et al, please feel free to jump in any time ... |
