Ted, My argument remains that CNBC is overwhelmingly bullish and a bit myopic. Some of that has to do with the fact that it is reporting news and projections of the future are only a small part of its bailiwick. Here are a few of my problems with CNBC, some of which I have posted to you before:
1.I really got disgusted when Tom Kurlak was running his fantasies on Micron Technology about 18 months ago. Maria would absolutely gush every time MU ticked up and always mentioned Kurlak positively. O.K., that part can be understood, as Merrill is a major broker and MU was their top commission stock. But when nothing he said about the company's business came true, there was absolutely zero follow-up from CNBC and certainly not from the designated cheerleader. However, when the same analyst was bearish and, temporarily, IMHO, wrong on Intel's price, he got skewered by the hair spray twins, Kerlak and Faber and the Everwrong Bunny, Cramer, who was actually the voice of moderation on the subject. (Please excuse my spelling of the names. Yours is easy. Not all the others are. <G>)
2. Whenever a bear appears on the network, there are lots of caveats about him or her being short and talking their position. The same is not true of bulls. BTW, there are lots of ways to be bearish other than shorting the stock, and CNBC doesn't cover any of them.
3. I have yet to see any time devoted to the accounting tricks being pulled by co's to bull their eps. Yes, if they get an SEC investigation, you report it. But there should be some nod to quality of earnings on a regular basis, as the quality currently is as low as I've ever seen it.
4. Alternative investing. a. A few years back, when Mark Mobius appeared, Bill Griffith made the comment that "if you only watch one investment interview this year, this is the one." True, you folks have to tease for ratings, which I understand. But now, investing in emerging markets is rarely covered as it is not popular. Heck, a lot of folks got into emerging markets, at least partially because of CNBC hyping them while they were hot. There should be some follow up. b. Commodities are given short shrift. c. I have never seen a segment that discusses closed end funds, though that may be my fault for watching at the wrong time or for blinking my eye (which shuts down my hearing, too <G>). I think they should be a regular segment for their discounts, if for no other reason. d. Using options to reduce risk and increase profits has never been covered as far as I can remember. Innovative strategies may have been mentioned in passing, but all I remember is covered call writing, which is not only a very bullish strategy, but a risky one. There are lots of alternatives other than cash or overpriced domestic stocks and we rarely hear of them on CNBC.
5. Ted, just look at the product after big moves. On an up day, everyone at CNBC is all smiles. On a seriously down day, it looks like a funeral procession. Remember, some of your viewers are happy when stocks are only 250% overvalued instead of 300% overvalued.
6. Can't you folks find anyone who will criticize Greenspan's reckless printing of money and record expansion of credit, both of which are far beyond the economy's ability to generate real growth? All the economists and investment managers, even some sane ones, think he is doing a great job when he is really unbalancing the economy is an extremely dangerous manner. In fact, he is doing just what he accused the Fed of doing in the late 1920s. The A.G. love fest is not only one-sided, it is nutso.
Obviously, I watch and there are things I like. I don't think many of the folks on CNBC even know they are biased to the bullish side, but they definitely are. I would like to see more balance and less cheerleading, bullish or bearish.
Ted, you have a lot of courage to post here. I'll bet you get more notes than Santa in mid-December. <G>
MB |
