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.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Barry Grossman who wrote (42912)	12/19/1997 9:31:00 PM
From: Kirk ©	Respond to of 186894

Don't you just love it when instead of telling WHAT happened, the media tries to explain WHY things happened after they happen - as if they know - which they usually don't. Yeah. And then a few weeks later the "WHY" happens again and the "WHAT" doesn't happen and many lemmings lose their shirts and wonder what happened. Just ask the Gold bugs..... suite101.com

To: Barry Grossman who wrote (42912)	12/20/1997 8:56:00 AM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Barry, re: "Don't you just love it when instead of telling WHAT happened, the media tries to explain WHY things happened after they happen" This also perplexes me. I think the most interesting one is when the markets are up or down, every know nothing pundit has to give a reason for the move, be it bond rates or the proverbial "profit taking". But the sub 1K "phenomena" really took on a life of it's own, it's like the stories that become "urban legends" that have no basis in fact. Thanks to Paul Engle for getting the truth from the horses mouth, something that the 1000's of reporters that cover the industry neglected to bother to do. John

To: Barry Grossman who wrote (42912)	12/23/1997 4:33:00 PM
From: Barry Grossman	Read Replies (6) \| Respond to of 186894

Thread, Further on my topic here of media bias I'd like to give the latest example just heard on CNBC. Bruce Francis, in his lead-in to interviewing Microsoft's COO re the latest court paper filings, began his comments with "The empire strikes back in court papers this afternoon." His equating Microsoft with the evil empire in Star Wars or simply using the term "empire" to mean Microsoft is as clear an example of editorializing as I can come up with today. What is the uneducated investor/viewer who just happened to turn to CNBC to get some news about the world of business to think, when a so-called "reporter" uses derogotory terminology in describing a listed company? Does the investor receive information, which he will utilize to make his investment decisions, in an unbiased manner? What does CNBC have to gain by such editorializing other than pandering to the baser emotions of their audience? Why are they so judgemental rather than neutral? Enough of my rant. Comments? Barry Comments? Barry