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 (5801)	6/2/2000 7:37:00 AM
From: sunshadow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17683

You and your CNBC gang are arrogant beyond belief (with a few refreshing exceptions)!

To: Ted David who wrote (5801)	6/3/2000 2:28:00 PM
From: swisstrader	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 17683

Ted: do you mind if I just cry, cry, cry on your shoulder...you are a meanie...your show is stinkie...the guests are all baddies...the producers are cunning low lifes who have ulterior motives that only the CIA can decipher...and me, I only have this silly SI board and a few other crybabies to vent with but will keep watching, and watching and watching. One question: how can folks continue to watch what they so vehemently despise?...OK now, fire them missiles!

To: Ted David who wrote (5801)	6/4/2000 10:22:00 AM
From: WTMHouston	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 17683

TD: Three points: (1) CNBC seems to be doing a MUCH better job at not cutting off guests during interviews: a very positive change. (2) Most of us wish that we had one-tenth the access to company spokesmen as some folks at CNBC. As a result, whether it is real or not, it does appear a bit arrogant (and unjustified) to suggest that a company is not well run and might be a poor investment simply because they did not return a media phone call. Contrary to the implication in one of your posts, news-media relations are not on the same level of importance to a company as customer relations or service: in fact, they are not and should not be anywhere close. (3) Without some specific factual basis for drawing the conclusion, it seems a bit heavy handed to suggest that an investment should be rethought simply because a company did not return a CNBC anchor's phone call. A suggestion that an investment should be rethought because of the lack of a return phone call to a CNBC anchor, turns the anchor's attempted communication with the company into the news. The news, IMO, is that they did not return a call, period, the end. The opinion that investors "may want to rethink an investment" because the company did not return a call is both unwarranted, factually (without some other basis for reaching the conclusion), and, IMO, turns the news reporter into the news maker. While it is certainly better for news-media relations to promptly return phone calls, the company may have had legitimate business reasons for desiring not to publicly comment in the way that CNBC wished they would; just maybe, the company shareholders were better off without a public comment than with one. If one does not feed a hungry animal (the press), it frequently tends to start looking elsewhere for its meal. Do not misunderstand this: I am not suggesting that this is what happened. Rather, I am only suggesting that without more facts either conclusion is equally likely and neither is any more or less factually based. The logic of beginning with saying that "a company that doesn't return calls might not be well run and therefore not a good investment" does end up with "and because of that its stock price might go down." That is, of course, what usually happens to stocks that are not good investments, isn't it? It is at least as reasonable an inference (conclusion) as that "a company who did not return (any CNBC anchor's call) may not be well run and therefore not a good investment." The comment was "talking down" of the stock. Thus, I disagree with JXM that the comment was an implied threat to talk the stock down in the future. However, this disagreement may be more form than substance since I view the comment as the act of talking down the stock. IMO, Joe and David do a darn good job and are generally reasonable and informative in their responses and opinions. Plus, unlike some folks, I both like and appreciate their commentary and opinions. That, however, does not mean that they are perfect and never blow one: we all do. Isn't it equally reasonable for someone to get a bit perturbed when they hear what sounds like a company getting slammed (investors may want to rethink whether this is a good investment because they did not call me back) when there appears to be little, if any, specific factual basis for the suggestion? Have a good weekend. Troy

To: Ted David who wrote (5801)	6/5/2000 9:06:00 AM
From: long-gone	Respond to of 17683

Perhaps if CNBC does not wish us to say they are assisting in the downward manipulation of gold price they should simply report accurately - without the editorial comments. Gold price is currently more than $4 above the $280 reported. "Almost" would show less than not greater than; as is the truth.!.

To: Ted David who wrote (5801)	6/6/2000 6:55:00 AM
From: Teddy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17683

Kathleen Tanzy is doing a great job reading the news and smiling from London this week. She should have her own show. Oh, this is a "critique" thread: Other than Kathleen Tanzy, most of the talking heads on CNBC do not read very well and they do not smile enough. CNBC would be more enjoyable to watch if Kathleen Tanzy had her own show.