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.

Technology Stocks : Cisco Systems, Inc. (CSCO) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Other Analyst who wrote (34874)	5/8/2000 5:25:00 PM
From: The Phoenix	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 77398

I wonder if the Barrons editors or writers bought CSCO today. SEC? OG

To: The Other Analyst who wrote (34874)	5/8/2000 6:49:00 PM
From: John Dunigan	Respond to of 77398

Perhaps, but remember the mission of magazines is to sell publication, not necessarily be correct. Trashing the dot. coms is easy work, trashing a company with earnings and an excellent track record and a 50% market share is more demanding and they won't print a retraction when they're wrong.

To: The Other Analyst who wrote (34874)	5/8/2000 8:01:00 PM
From: SyncMan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77398

We've been dismissing the articles content, I think. And perhaps it's long term accuracy. I don't think anybody has been dismissing it's short term (especially right before earnings) effect. I, personally, had no Idea it would be this bad. Perhaps some of it was just a down day, but certainly Barron's mananged to lead the charge. I predict that those investor's who didn't sell will be very happy in 6 months. (and those that bought). Just a prediction. Worth nothing at all. (like the article).

To: The Other Analyst who wrote (34874)	5/8/2000 10:34:00 PM
From: FR1	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77398

Barron's also managed to ding the dot.coms with its "cash burn" article in March. Oh yeah, I remember that. Some of the guys they listed by Barrons as burning cash at $x/mo came on tv and showed how anybody with a high school education could see that the numbers were all wrong. Of course, Barrons does not have to be responsible and the businesses are not exonerated in any way. Barrons is not in the business of being a journalist. Barrons is only in the business of selling ads. To sell ads you need big circulation. You get big circulation by shocking people in a negative way. Hence mostly negative articles with no opposing point of view. Exactly the opposite of a journalist.