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: t2 who wrote (7962)	5/29/2001 6:47:14 PM
From: Michael Grosz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17683

Good point. Did any one else find it incredibly OFFENSIVE that Gary Kaminski had to compete with sights and sounds of clips from "Pearl Harbor" while discussing the airline industry on SB this morning? Maybe it was me, but he certainly looked annoyed at the sounds of fighter planes covering up his points about ability to earn cost of capital, etc. To whom it may concern at CNBC: It's one thing to insult Kernan and Faber by interrupting and distracting them and us with audio and video clips. They work there. Don't interrupt a guest commentator attempting (in vain) to actually have an intelligent discussion. That is, of course, unless CNBC wants to come clean and admit that it is ALL FLUFF.

To: t2 who wrote (7962)	5/31/2001 1:50:10 PM
From: Toby Zidle	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17683

You're looking for "Full Disclosure". No harm in that. But does it really do anything in the specific case you cite? Will any but the most esoteric of technical analysts change an opinion about buying a well-positioned stock because of outflow data? Will high inflows keep anyone in a stock he'd otherwise sell? In other words, does it make any difference? The conflict of interest is stronger if CNBC personnel go on to note the existence of Biederman's hedge fund. Doesn't it then sound like an endorsement? I can understand the conflict of interest complaint when various analysts or portfolio managers push specific stocks. But the case you complain of seems no different from when any other analyst gets in front of the camera and talks about the perceived direction of the market. Hopefully, CNBC viewers have enough basic intelligence to understand that these are opinions, interpretations of data, and are not presented as divine certainties. Or do you advocate the principles of the entertainment programing group: dumb it down to the lowest level of intelligence on the receiving side of the boob tube? Jeez, I hope not.