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: Les H who wrote (7817)	5/10/2001 6:06:11 AM
From: Yogizuna	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17683

Devastating article on CNBC there in the San Francisco Examiner! A parade of bubbleheaded television readers. 98% buys, 2% sells. The CNBC bubbleheads are simply unquestioning promoters who created a friendly platform for every con artist analyst to come aboard and hawk his or her bogus stock estimates. Simply devastating! Thank you for bringing it to my attention. No wonder Ted David hates my guts and refuses to respond to me anymore, partly because I was making some similar comments during the bubble when CNBC was using the trusting nature and naivete of many investors to make a buck for GE! (in my opinion of course) Hopefully they have permanently learned many things from the ongoing criticism of the structure of their programming. (including ours on this board)

To: Les H who wrote (7817)	5/10/2001 9:04:06 AM
From: Mark Marcellus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17683

That has got to be one of the worst articles I've ever read. The least Ms. Smilgis could do for the victims of her poison pen letter is to spell their names right. There are at least 4 misspelled names. And I'm no fan of Walter P-I-E-C-Y-K, but if you're going to trash his infamous call you should at least adjust for the split. I'd also like to know which "scholarly sages" say that the the "6 percent of investors who buy at the bottom of the market make money and the 80 percent of us who fell for the CNBC daily drumbeat of casino hype -- and bought tech stocks near the top ---- are, simply put, suckers". Maybe the professors from LTCM? That statement simply doesn't make sense, either logically or gramatically. As for "we usually sober and circumspect investors", puh-leeze!(my preferred spelling). Most investors go through cycles of fear and greed, and from the tenor of this article, I'd say Ms. Smilgis is no exception. Just because investors were in fear mode during the mid 90's doesn't mean they were being sober and circumspect. I have some advice for Ms. Smilgis: 1) Stop looking at CNBC as the scapegoat for your losses and start looking in the mirror. 2) Find a new editor. Immediately. 3) Stop sniping at business journalists and instead try to make a positive contribution. Regardless of the overall quality (or lack thereof) in business journalism, this article subtracted from it. As an aside, I'd also note that journalists fall short in other areas as well. For example, they don't do a particularly good job of covering politics, social issues, foreign affairs, sports, or crime. They do an okay job on the weather though (with the exception of natural disasters).