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: Chip Anderson who wrote (1529)	8/28/1998 4:08:00 PM
From: Early Out	Respond to of 17683

He says "uh," "um" and "er" much too much. He comes off as "whiny." He seems biased against technology stocks. At times he is even more painful to listen to than Kate.

To: Chip Anderson who wrote (1529)	8/28/1998 9:02:00 PM
From: David C. Burns	Respond to of 17683

If he would stop talking like Don Depre on meth it would be a good start.

To: Chip Anderson who wrote (1529)	8/29/1998 11:18:00 AM
From: Thomas G. Busillo	Respond to of 17683

Chip, he could cut down on attempting to construct grand, sweeping meta-narratives or at the very least make it a little clearer that his meta-narratives are hypotheses. Yesterday's little "5-Acts of a Global Market Meltdown" story is a perfect example. It's nice to try and make sense out of chaos, but the reason there's chaos in the first place is because a lot of people don't buy into some of the hypotheses he's presenting. Thesis + Anti-thesis = Synthesis. Pisani stops at thesis and by doing so his reporting suffers from "the pillow syndrome" - the last impression made on him gets reported. And when some of the hypotheses he chooses to emphasize turn out to be wrong he just glosses over that fact. For example, several weeks ago one of his recurrent themes was that semiconductor stocks had bottomed. Yesterday, he makes the point that the $SOX is within striking distance of a 2-year low. And I'm sitting here thinking "wait a second, the opinions you were consciously choosing to give a forum to several weeks ago - they have been proven wrong and yet you just sit there and make that statement as if you think we the viewers have no memory whatsoever." One could argue that he's just reporting opinions. I say (a) that should be made clearer, and (b) given the heft of this media outlet, which sometimes causes opinions to rapidly metastatize into quasi-fact, the choice of which opinions to emphasize is a very significant judgement-call. IMHO, his judgement in terms of both presentation and sourcing could be better. Good trading, Tom

To: Chip Anderson who wrote (1529)	8/29/1998 12:53:00 PM
From: Paul Weiss	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17683

You folks have me thinking too much about CNBC. I can hardly stand to watch the channel without analysing it. As a sweeping generality, I believe these people produce a pretty good product in covering the equity markets. Compared to say, uhmmm-- local news shows, the quality of cast, intellectual stimulation, factual reporting on CNBC absolutely shines. One thing that I would like to emphasize is that the reporters who garner my attention are those who understand the market best. Ron Insana, Mark Haines, Ted David, Sue Herrera, Bob Pisani, and my ol' buddy Joe Kernen (he's everybody's ol' buddy, right?) come to mind. It's the individuals who are clueless that I find to be annoying. I can't recall any of these script readers names because I normally tune them out. Paul