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: Ted David who wrote (5519)	5/12/2000 8:44:00 AM
From: Bear Down	Respond to of 17683

Dear Ted, I beg to differ with you. Although you are correct that CNBC doesn't put a gun to anyone's head to buy stock, you can't deny CNBC's influence. You also cannot say that CNBC "tries" to bring both sides. I can remember the wednesday before thanksgiving when CNBC, especially Costello, kept calling ADSP a wireless company (probably referring to AERL). I personnally send 4 faxes and numerous emails and phone calls to help CNBC correct those mistakes. On friday, 2 days later, CNBC ontinued to misreport the facts. Even when CNBC finally straightened out their misreporting, they never mentioned or acknowledged their mistake. CNBC is more an outlet for analysts or fund managers whose firms have inventory they want to dispose of. Just send your guy to CNBC and have him tout the stock. Case in point, Greg Hypowitz comes on and touts EPIC to mark haines only to watch it run 80% on huge volume during the 5 minute piece. At the end Greg Hypowitz says, by the way, my firm holds 1,000,000 shares. I bet his firm sold a bunch of them that day (I haven't checked, just my opinion) And to your statement that only those losing money complain, you are again wrong. I am basically a short seller and I use CNBC for a mining field. CNBC has made me a ton of money this year. it is just a shame that it comes on the backs of Mom and Pop investors. There are many othre examples and I have since given up on calling or faxing CNBC with corrections on their misreporting. I have done it several times without ever once seeing a retraction on air. I have also never gotten even a courtesy email or fax back. CNBC is a bunch of talking heads that should be used for entertainment purposes. And why don't we see Costello much on big down days if you are bringing both sides of the story? Good Day PS Let's not foget about Maria's little boo boo mentioning ALTN instead of ATON the other day. Another uncorrected mistake that cost some people much money.

To: Ted David who wrote (5519)	5/12/2000 10:26:00 AM
From: B.REVERE	Respond to of 17683

Thanks for the reply. I have lost money in this market because I DID my due diligence and was short the market in '98 when Greenspan did his unilateral and totally illegal rate drop. It's one thing to be given the power to control the money supply of the world's most important economy. It's another to illegally bail out a hedge fund (whose leader was a close friend of Greenspan)and the banks that loaned them the money at the expense of investors who were on the RIGHT side of the market! At that point, I realized that a free market does not exist in this country because the playing field has been leveled against those who made the right investment choices but are NOT too big to fail. You can claim systemic risk to global economies but markets should be allowed to fail on their own weight and not manipulated to bail out those who were on the WRONG side of the market. Off my soapbox, Regards

To: Ted David who wrote (5519)	5/12/2000 11:20:00 AM
From: S. maltophilia	Respond to of 17683

<< The lottery atmosphere sometimes seen in this bull market>> 'Morning, Ted, Please pass this on to whomever is responsible. I know you didn't do it 'cause you're off today<G>. Was it really necessary to cut off Joe Kernan in the middle of one of the more substantial segments of CNBC programming to cut to a live shot of the lottery winners? Seemed like it could've waited.

To: Ted David who wrote (5519)	5/12/2000 12:06:00 PM
From: Tommaso	Respond to of 17683

I am assuming that most readers of this thread know that it is possible to see Bill Fleckenstein and Bill Meehan on CNBC, who post with a fair degree of regularity on SI--as well as David Tice, who does not post but who is frequently referenced as a spokesman for the Bear outlook. It would be a pleasure (at least to me)to see more of the CNBC staff posting here, though that seems unlikely given the work schedules and the climate of invective, scorn, and taunting that too often prevails here. I do enjoy it when, occasionally, a professional academic economist turns up on CNBC. If someone like Burton Malkiel made a weekly appearance, I know I would never miss it. But there may be reasons why that's hard to arrange

To: Ted David who wrote (5519)	5/12/2000 3:45:00 PM
From: Yogizuna	Respond to of 17683

Ted, I agree with most of what you said about people having to do their own due diligence and CNBC did not buy their stock picks for them, etc, etc, but I think it is a bit ridiculous to state that CNBC has hurt "NO ONE". If someone presses this issue hard enough, I'm reasonably sure that many stories would come out of the proverbial woodwork, even though many would not come forth because they were ashamed of themselves..... I post buy and sell signals almost every day the market is open, and have done so for many years. Even though my record is better than most, I'm sure that some people may have gotten hurt following my work, but I accept that reality even though if someone asks me, I will always tell them basically what you said about having to do your own homework when it comes to investing or trading the markets and stocks. Have a nice weekend Ted and everybody! Yogi

To: Ted David who wrote (5519)	5/12/2000 5:19:00 PM
From: EightyEight	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17683

To: Rande Is who wrote (25788) From: Rande Is Friday, May 12, 2000 3:39 PM ET Reply # of 25818 . . . . . . . .Another CNBC Rant. . . . . . . . Its the same thing over and over on CNBC. . .Blah blah blah. . analyst after analyst. . .taking turns throwing out the big "fear of higher interest rates". . . shall we start counting how many times interest rates are mentioned on CNBC and use it as an economic indicator? How about the number of times Maria says the words "Goldman Sachs" in a single day. . . compared to all other journalists combined? Is anyone here AFRAID of higher interest rates? I'm not. And the high flying companies aren't either. . .they don't borrow money anymore. . .they sell stock. And this economy has proven over and over that it can support higher interest rates without necessarily leading to higher inflation. The productivity of our companies accounts for the higher growth. If CNBC does not do some serious soul-searching with regard to how they serve the needs of we individual investors [the primary viewing audience] in their reporting. . . then we will start to boycott them. . .in favor of Bloomberg TV. . . which DOES address the needs and concerns of the individual investors in their reporting. Bloomberg is currently available on Direct TV. . . but if we all call our cable companies to request Bloomberg TV, that may change. And what a pleasure it is not to hear the personal bias of the reporters. Today's pump of Agilent by the Goldman Sachs analyst, accompanied by Maria was pitiful. And how many times have we heard the words, "stock for sale in size at AOL" ? ? Perhaps the SEC needs to beef up its MEDIA ENFORCEMENT division!! Day after day Goldman Sachs, DLJ and Merrill reports [in that order] are pumped over and over and over in our face. . . .as though the reports are written to help us. . . . when most all individual investors know full well, that they are designed to trip us up. We aren't as stupid as you may think! CNBC, in case you have not yet figured it out. . . the market is a two-party game. On one side, you have the hedge funds, the major brokerage houses, the market makers and the large fund managers. On the other side, you have the individual investors/traders that watch your program all day long. Catering to the requests and announcements of the major brokerage houses. . . simply shows which side CNBC prefers. Contrary to popular belief. . . we DO have a choice. Personally, I don't "watch" CNBC. . .it plays BEHIND me. . .I only listen. . . I found out that Ron Insana had a cue ball 3 days after everyone else. Perhaps someone should provide links to the equipment that mutes the TV during commercials. . . not only would that serve our purpose of getting the attention of CNBC executives, it would save our sanity from the small queue of spots that repeat far too often. Throwing a few "interesting" specials out there after market is patronizing at best. I want to hear reports 5 minutes before and right through the opening bell, telling me of what is REALLY moving. . . . not what some brokerage told their anal-yst to report. I want to regularly hear reports from the individual investors. . .technical analysis. . .sentiment. . . stories, etc. I want to hear reports from the traders themselves. . . not what the journalist thinks he heard them say. Do we have to start our own TV/radio/newsroom to show you how it SHOULD be done? There was a time when that sounded ridiculous. . .but now it is quite accessible. . . especially with broadband and streaming video/audio. . .and there are plenty of capable television workers right here in Nashville that need work. CNBC has FAR too much influence at present. . . and I almost never hear full disclosure of positions held by guests reciting analysis. Web broadcasting is the future. And I for one welcome change. Rande Is View Replies (4) \| View Next 10 Messages \| Respond \| Previous \| Next Remove SubjectMark Ignore this Person View SubjectMarks Terms of Use

To: Ted David who wrote (5519)	5/13/2000 12:19:00 PM
From: lazarre	Respond to of 17683

Human nature repeating itself once again; the part which says :" you only see what you want to see " ( or something like that ). B.Revere's criticisms; reading them, I was nearly convinced he was watching a completely different CNBC than I was. Where he sees a clear bias to cheerleading, I see a slight bias going to the bear. And, Ted, with your view pointing in a neutral and decidedly objective direction, human nature supplies us with yet another factual but sometimes disquieting homily: " hmmmm, there's some truth to what he says " ( or something like that ). L

To: Ted David who wrote (5519)	5/13/2000 2:28:00 PM
From: Haim R. Branisteanu	Read Replies (6) \| Respond to of 17683

Hi Ted, I respectfully disagree that CNBC is not to blame as a participant in the current mania and the resulting losses of those who bought based on the hype propagated by many broadcaster but CNBC in particular. If you recall this subject was mentioned in the past and more so the reporting of Maria B. who is nothing more than WS hyper's mouthpiece. In the old days of FNN there was an investigative reporting approach and not a reporting of news no matter how misleading they are. As you may know there are plenty of PR reports released by various companies mostly High Tech or Bio Tech companies with the sole purpose of hyping the company stock. Business Week had several articles on that matter. It is CNBC responsibility not to propagate pure hype or misleading earnings reports and as each investigative reporter ........ do your home work and due diligence ..... before broadcasting those reports or every thing else. CNBC has the responsibility to report the truth and not only the hype or unfiltered news. Therefore wen an earning report is released if CNBC chooses to report those earnings it should do it, after some due diligence was made and clarify if the earnings are also a result of interest income, selling of puts on the company stocks, other financial income etc. Best example are the recent DELL earnings (I do not trade this stock) and CNBC reporting... see also Fleckenstein comments on those earnings. As to your remark, At the risk of sounding pedantic, these include: doing your homework, knowing your own risk tolerance, being aware of the suitability of any given investment to your own situation. What if one has done his home work and arrived to the conclusion that the stock is way way over valued so he is buying puts or shorts the stock, (I do not trade MU) but CNBC continuously promotes the stock or Maria B. is feeding misinformation ...... example MU, RMBS etc........ as there was no shortage of memory chips, and chip prices were not rising, but Maria B. was still reporting there was a shortage ....... for obvious reasons ..... as some one was involved in hyping MU ...... well I did my home work but MU keep on rising and memory chip prices falling so I took no action as MU was and still is manipulated. Inflation and interest environment? well we know it is rising ....... stock should fall......... or this time is different?? As to AMZN who is more talked about on CNBC ? Barns & Nobles or AMZN? Both have Internet presence and IMHO Barns & Noble as a company are great contributors to local communities with their stores but AMZN is all hype no positive contribution to any community except their own. So my question is why not at least balance reporting? same air time to both companies. Further who is more important to the US economy? EBAY, YHOO, RHAT, ISLD, JNPR, JDSU, and other fluff or even QCOM, A, CSCO ..... or DD, MMM, IP, XOM, AA, GM, CAT, CUM, X, AMR, UAL, CSX, MRK etc.(I do not trade those stocks except DD) What is the criteria of giving a company air time or having their CEO/CFO on the set? WS Hype ... need to sell their stock ....... or the real and actual contribution to the US economy ? Did CNBC reported referred to GE pension plan and the substantial disparity between those who worked a lifetime for GE and the pensions of the new high fliers in the upper echelon of management? (see Business Week article and other related news) Did CNBC report on the $16.9 billion in GE pension surplus used to smooth out earning reports? like the recent $1.4 billion credit to earnings from this surplus??? Did CNBC reported on the high leverage of GEEC who now represents a substantial part of GE income? Did CNBC made any comparison between Welch (otherwise nick named Neutron Jack ..... for good reason) the present GE Chair and "Chain Saw AL" (who one was a CNBC hero) I do not think so. Did CNBC at all addressed the current environment of smoothing earnings mostly financed by pension plan surplusses??? I do not think so. I write you because many people will lose more money for the reasons I posted on SI this post Message 13468456 and other related posts. I can understand the medium some of the anchors at CNBC are working and would classify Bill, Ron, Sue and you as the more professionals of the team. I also understand that CNBC pays your paycheck from advertising revenues of the same entities propagating the hype, but still I think there should be some control over how and what is broadcast and not carbon copy every news release which usual only serves the releaser. Remember the old day of FNN they were a quality financial cable program but unfortunate their stringent standards and honesty was not embraced by WS and other corporation for obvious reasons and advertising was slow. Still those who migrated from FNN to CNBC still have some of the spirit of the old days........ INVESTIGATIVE REPORTING ....... Search of the truth and not carbon copy the hype or misleading financial reporting!!!!! Haim .... and BTW were is Jimy Rogers?? or even Al Frank to balance out perma bulls Kudlow or Schaeffer

To: Ted David who wrote (5519)	5/14/2000 12:08:00 AM
From: Wigglesworth	Respond to of 17683

Ted, Please forward this message to The Brayne! I don't know why CNBC calls this guy The Brayne, unless it means the brayne of a British Mad Cow! And I don't know how to make this msg less 'acerbic' either (your prior complaint) but 2 things: To BrayneDamaged: 1. Eat and finish your breakfast off camera. It was disgusting to see you wave your plastic fork and poke at your disgusting half-eaten food so early in the morning. 2. This second criticism will make CNBC a family channel: Warn viewers of imminent ass-kissing so they can turn off the machine when children are present. Your obsequious and fawning attitude when interviewing people like Jack Welch is understandable, but it was sickening when you, like a pale-faced sycophant, threw the Liar with Froth out of Both Sides of His Mouth Skot McKneely a gratuitous opportunity to swipe at Microsoft ("Now that MSFT is down, will you lighten your attack on it?" to paraphrase your braindead question). This Liar is on GE Board and you may feel obligated to kiss his butts, but do this off camera too! What value is your question to viewers???

To: Ted David who wrote (5519)	5/14/2000 10:39:00 PM
From: jim kelley	Respond to of 17683

I guess the bottom line is that CNBC feels it can do anything it wants and its viewing public should know better than to presume that CNBC actually knows anything. <G> Caveat emptor... Fortunately, I rarely ever watch CNBC.....