Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : CNBC -- critique. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mark Marcellus who wrote (3520)	8/7/1999 2:48:00 AM
From: RJL	Respond to of 17683

Great post Mark...I couldn't agree more. Cheers, Rich

To: Mark Marcellus who wrote (3520)	8/7/1999 5:25:00 AM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 17683

In the early '80s, I stopped reading the Washington Post on a regular basis because I was disgusted with the number of editorializing stories appearing on A1, essentially portraying as news the backroom chatter of Democrats and liberal Republicans about Reagan and his administration. During that period, I saw a symposium on C- Span held at the American Enterprise Institute, getting reaction on the Lichter media study that showed that editors and reporters at the leading outlets (the Post, the Times, the networks, etc.) were overwhelmingly liberal and Democratic. Ben Bradlee was on the panel, and was utterly dismissive, calling it absurd that anyone could think that his people were not professional enough to set their biases aside.....Now, perhaps 15 years later, the Post is a far more even- handed paper, and it is willing to admit that it used to be more biased, and that there was an effort to counter that. In fact, Meg Greenfield, the recently deceased editorial page editor, a tough- minded moderate, is widely credited with being the instigator of change, not because she had authority on the news side, but due to her moral influence. The bias was there; even if it is not entirely gone, it is far less; and many other outlets should follow the Posts example.....

To: Mark Marcellus who wrote (3520)	8/7/1999 10:55:00 AM
From: Jim S	Respond to of 17683

Thanks for the cogent reply, Mark. That was a full one-pointer> :-) We've come to almost complete agreement now, despite our differing viewpoints. Your comment about news media "groupthink" was spot on point, IMO. Again, good post, and thanks. jim

To: Mark Marcellus who wrote (3520)	8/7/1999 11:29:00 AM
From: Bill	Respond to of 17683

<<When the President makes a policy statement it is news, and it is often news which can move markets. >> I think your statement is generally accepted as a fact. However, as I searched my memory, I cannot remember one such policy statement delivered by Clinton in 6 1/2 years outside of his prime time State of the Union addresses. None of his daytime speeches have been relevant to the markets. Furthermore, the content of those speeches is generally pre-leaked to media outlets, thereby obviating any surprise factor reason for covering it. I see absolutely no need for CNBC to cover Clinton during the day.