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 : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ted David who wrote (26303)	11/17/1998 9:47:00 AM
From: Mike M	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

I agree with you....His comments were careless....But I too thought your interview appeared partisan. Would like to hear your comments. Mike

To: Ted David who wrote (26303)	11/17/1998 10:06:00 AM
From: Skeeter Bug	Respond to of 164684

ted, the gutter is several levels UP for amzn ;-)

To: Ted David who wrote (26303)	11/17/1998 12:45:00 PM
From: Steve Andrew	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 164684

Ted..... As a full-time market professional who keeps no less than a peripheral eye on CNBC all day, I am becoming increasingly disgusted with your lack of journalistic integrity. Your "softball" approach to interviewing different WSJ "journalists" is a perfect example of leaving out the "WHY" question when it comes to understanding the ridiculous world of internet valuations. Allowing a supposed "expert" (A simpleton WSJ writer) to post one perfectly abused and out of context financial ratio as a determinent of "market VALUE" is a pathetic representation of financial journalism. You and your staff are losing grip with reality by allowing this type of misleading and deceptive "analysis" to appear as reliable and meaningful. Over the past two weeks of internet media, neither yourself nor CNBC (with some exception of Haines and Faber) has presented a fair and balanced review of the hyperbole and the reasoning behind it. Instead your coverage has fed the momentum, SOES and Day trading communities further ammunition to go out and bloody the rest of the public investment community. Not once has anyone questioned the "how and why" of this mania...instead focusing on reporting the "great gains" made by these issues. Doesn't anyone care that this will likely all end rather badly for the MAJORITY of investors and leave most participants poorer for it? When your WSJ shill pipes in that AMZN's PR release suggests that it will become the "Wal-MART of the web"and they are the "value play of the Net", doesn't it then become a journalists duty to ask what might happen if they keep losing $$$$ at this attempt. No mention of any balance. The report then tacks 3 more dollars onto the stock price and causes a similar run in the other names....you people are becoming increasing irresponsible and smitten with your own power. As my former professor at the Wharton School once said, the press often forgets fairness when it suits their natural bias. It is clear here that you and CNBC have become smitten once again with this bull.... stampede and part of the problem instead of remaining guardians of integrity and accuracy. Indeed, I may be short some of these issues, and long others, but I do know what the role of a fair press is...and CNBC has nearly ceased to function in this role...again, ex.Haines/Faber. I am not calling anyone any names here, but you maybe spending too much time under the sunlamp and too little time examining the facts.