Have you been reading this thread? A constant complaint about CNBC is that they have been unwilling to air ANY negative analysis. That overstates the case, but they have certainly reflected the overwhelming positive bias emanating from Wall Street.
CNBC isn't hosting a political debate, where they take an hour and present both sides of the issue. This is commercial TV, where they fill up the spaces between the commercials with talking heads who beat their own particular drum. On that particular day, the drum beater had done some fundamental analysis and found, not shockingly, that valuations for Amazon were high. On other days, other drum beaters come to different conclusions. I remember one famous day when an analyst announced on CNBC a target price of $400, and shortly thereafter replaced a Merrill analyst who was fired because he had the nerve to announce a much lower price based on his "extreme" fundamental viewpoint. I must have missed the outraged calls for balanced reporting at the time.
The merits or demerits of CNBC aside, what really drives me crazy on SI is the tendency everywhere to take a negative (or even neutral) comment on a favored stock as a personal affront. There is also a tendency to ignore, probably for related reasons, basic sound principles of fundamental analysis. Normally I just try to ignore all this, but when you come on this thread and complain that CNBC presented a negative viewpoint (based on fundamental analysis - horrors!) without immediately raising the ghost of Henry Blodget to counteract it, I'm afraid you might get a flip comment from me. Sorry, but that's the way it is. |
