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: Gary M. Reed who wrote (7296)	2/24/2001 11:30:03 AM
From: Michael Grosz	Respond to of 17683

Gary, you made some excellent points. I would like to add to your conclusion of: 'It's painfully obvious why CNBC doesn't hold guests accountable for their blowhard ways...because the network would NEVER want to sway from their M.O. of being "Tout TV." ' I suggest that a syndrome similar to one which occurs in political reporting is happening with CNBC. Every political reporter has sources. They may be in congress, congressional staffers, in the White House, or anywhere else in the administration. The source provides the reporter with the deepest inside stink on who's doing what to whom, and provides the reporter with numerous "exclusives" (which are attributed, of course, to "sources close to the investigation", or a "highly placed individual" speaking on condition of anonymity, etc.) What happens when the source is caught with THEIR pants around THEIR ankles? The reporter must decide whether to expose the source and lose their "insider", or simply ignore the charge (perhaps as a "vast right-wing conspiracy") and maintain their contact to the juicy goods. Any financial reporter who calls it like they see it (ie. reminding analysts how bad their predictions have performed, or exposing short squeeze attempts, or using the phrase "pump and dump" on the air) risk losing their source. As a result, nobody is doing any critical reporting, tout is perceived, and corruption lives. To paraphrase Ben Franklin (or one of those dead white males) "All that is required for CNBC to succeed is for good reporters to do nothing".

To: Gary M. Reed who wrote (7296)	2/24/2001 2:03:19 PM
From: Thomas M.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17683

re: Gustafson saying "boy, I was wrong, Barrons was right...I really blew that call. That wasn't shoddy journalism, rather it was just shoddy research on my part." It would be particularly appropriate for Gustafson to say this, since he was overtly taunting bears during the mania, saying, "They've been wrong in the past, so why should we listen to them?" Of course, since CNBC allows it's reporters, namely Joe Kernen, to taunt bears in just the same manner, I realize it is unrealistic to expect CNBC to hold a guest to a higher standard. Tom