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: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (5795)	6/2/2000 1:34:00 AM
From: Cameron Lang	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 17683

Jorj, I saw the exchange you are talking about, and while I also don't remember the exact words, I do remember feeling disturbed by it--and I normally enjoy watching David and Joe on Squawk Box. While I think the exchange fell short of an actual threat to punish companies that don't return CNBC's phone calls, I didn't think it was right to insinuate on the air (and I don't think it is at all hyperbole to interpret it as an insinuation) that something was terribly wrong because Brooks Automation didn't return Joe's call. There are lots of legitimate reasons why the company may not be ready to talk to the media about its plummeting stock price--a desire to fully gather all the facts about whatever was causing the decline, for example. Believe it or not, practicing prudence and plain caution, and watching out for the interests of the shareholders, doesn't necessarily mean making hasty, on-the-record statements to time-constrained broadcast journalists the first chance you get. There could be something bad going on at Brooks, the price drop obviously isn't a good sign, but I don't think it is good journalism to aggravate an already sensitive situation by blithely making a blanket statement--but firmly in the Brooks context--that companies that don't return phone calls in these situations are very likely companies that shouldn't be owned. How about: "The company didn't return my phone call, they are evidently not ready to make a statement about the matter." Isn't that a little more professional?

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (5795)	6/2/2000 7:17:00 AM
From: Ted David	Read Replies (6) \| Respond to of 17683

>>>And I believe that CNBC is more and more frequently using sensational embellishments, exaggerations and yes, even hyperbole.<<< I disagree and you are of course entitled to your own opinions, founded or otherwise. >>>As I have proven today, I can't give direct examples/quotes that are more than 30 seconds in the past,<<<< Sir, you have not proven anything except that you think you heard a conversation for which you do not have the verbatim transcript and you are now endeavoring to get one. >>> so if you want me to provide examples, I will post them as they come up in the future. Let me know if you want me to undertake that project.<<<< I do not wish you to do anything. You made some charges on this board, I suggested that you might be wrong and offered a way to get a transcript. If you wish to pursue this further, of course you are free to do so. However, my involvement is over as of this post. td