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: ron insana who wrote (1899)	10/20/1998 7:45:00 PM
From: jopawa	Respond to of 17683

Ron, Having watched you on CNBC, and FNN before, I've found you to be the best on air financial journalist that there is. The fact that you have a perspective that is actually not gung ho bullish at all times, is refreshing to those of us who felt the pain of '87. Where Lazarre comes off claiming you are pereniallly bearish is beyond anyone who has been watching "Ticker Talk" the last 2 weeks. Keep up the good, balanced, informative reporting. John

To: ron insana who wrote (1899)	10/20/1998 8:40:00 PM
From: Dave Budde	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17683

To: Ron or Ted or anyone else that reports news on CNBC. I, for one, appreciate the neutral positions taken by most of the staff at CNBC. I'm curious whether you have restrictions about what stock positions that you can hold in your personal accounts since you make commentary and interview people about these issues. Ron has stated several times that he holds GE stock in his 401K (no doubt from employee purchase programs and/or stock options). But this is the only stock that he has mentioned that he owns. It is common practice that accountants and lawyers that represent companies cannot take positions in these companies due to conflict of interest reasons. Do the same factors apply to you? And thanks for monitoring and responding to this thread. It is a great service to all of us that frequent SI. And keep up the great work that you do at CNBC. Best regards, Dave

To: ron insana who wrote (1899)	10/21/1998 8:20:00 AM
From: John Carragher	Respond to of 17683

ron I always enjoy your interviews and presentations. thanks John

To: ron insana who wrote (1899)	10/21/1998 8:30:00 AM
From: BomboochaBoy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17683

Ron, did I detect a slight perk in your voice Tuesday? Probably my imagination, but you sounded a smidgen more sharp than usual. Appreciate your input. Paul

To: ron insana who wrote (1899)	10/23/1998 12:24:00 PM
From: manohar kanuri	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17683

Ron, On a bright sunny day feel free to ask the world: Does life really have any meaning? Is the world for real? What is Value? However, when someone (or the world) is feeling suicidal and is on the brink, those very same questions become potentially irresponsible. You know as well as anybody that "Journalists are paid to ask questions" is a catch-all; and that responsible journalism demands you parse that properly, in context. And you know as well as anybody that should you become too identified with a particular dogma/orthodoxy, your viewers will simply discount your relevance as appropriate. As Auden said of Freud - "he is no more a person now, but a whole climate of opinion." (Lest we be tempted to think that a compliment, and a good thing, along comes chop-chop Nabokov to disabuse us. But that is neither here nor there.) More importantly, speaking of paid shills and conflicts of interest, it would be a good idea for CNBC to have its guests who give buy/sell/hold recommendations to declare, invariably, and on air, that they are net long/short that stock and/or sector. Admittedly CNBC cannot police the world, but CNBC can do its bit to ensure that it is not the willing or unwitting tool of manipulators and charlatans. I hope nobody but nobody is making the claim that there are no charlatans and manipulators on Wall Street? mano

To: ron insana who wrote (1899)	10/28/1998 7:36:00 PM
From: oexwa	Respond to of 17683

Ron Insana, I am a great fan of yours going back to the FNN days. I am glad to see you are getting some NBC exposure, too. I have a couple of suggestions that might clarify some reports: 1. Editorials should be clearly labeled. CNBC has labels for everything else, why not for editorial commentary? Ticker Talk does not say editorial to me. 2. The SEC in conjunction with the AICPA, the accounting standards board and every other accounting group has developed accounting rules and guidelines that are to promote consistency, accuracy and full disclosure. These rules, as you know, are called GAAP. When a company reports earnings, the number that is highlighted should be the earnings as determined by Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, not whatever the company, some analyst or promoter wants them to be. Explanatory information is fine, but headlines that say AMZN beats estimates when they lost $0.90 vs. estimates of $0.57 could be misleading. Does the media have an agreement to post earnings before (frequently) non-recurring charges that I don't know about? It's not just CNBC, but Zack's, and others also do it. This stock has had lots of debate over whether the SEC's insistence that the acquisition goodwill be amortized over three years as opposed to a one-time charge, is included in the estimates. If you were an analyst recommending the stock, what would you say when asked if they were in your estimate? Well, you would probably tell the truth. Some others might not. Gotta go. Time to re-read AMZN's latest missive. Thanks for taking the time to read and respond to this board. Bob