Has CNBC Lost its Mojo?
Has CNBC lost its mojo?
I really hope not.
No one has watched more hours of CNBC over the last twenty years than I have. I am a big fan. Since I also represent an important part of the investment community, my viewpoint might even count for a little more.
If you and I were socializing over coffee or a drink, I could tell you some great CNBC stories, including correspondence with many of the anchors, past and present, from many years ago.
So I write this as a friend of CNBC and with the best intentions.
But I am concerned.
What Went Wrong – – the Facts
CNBC is getting killed on the ratings. There is a death spiral as their appeal shrinks and they respond in a way that makes it worse.
CNBC Ratings Fall to 7 Year Lows
- Squawk Box (6-9 a.m.) is supposed to prime traders before the bell. The show posted its lowest rated its time block since Q4 2006.
- The Closing Bell (3-5 p.m.) is supposed to wrap up the day’s action. The slot posted its fifth-lowest rating in total viewers and second-lowest ratings in the key 25-54 demographic since 1997.
- Fast Money (5-6 p.m.) is focused almost specifically on swing trading stocks. That time slot showed the lowest rating for the 25-54 demo since 1997 — and lowest in total viewers since Fast Money launched in 2006.
This is merely a summary. It is actually even worse. Kudlow is losing to Lou Dobbs, etc. It is across the board. And this is before the boxing replacement for the Olympics.
Now we learn that they are laying off employees to institute reality programming.
What is Wrong — the Analysis
Simply put, CNBC has little to offer to the average investor. There is too much emphasis on day trading (in content and commercials), and far too many stories about fear.
As someone who watches the news, the blogs, and the major communication channels, I can see the pattern. It creates a climate that actually will kill their audience.
- There is news.
- A widespread network of observers creates negative talking points. The motivations may include selling gold, selling bonds, selling a political viewpoint, but none of it has much to do with investment returns for the average person.
- These points are published on a website that embraces conspiracy and anonymity. Somehow, many people (including those who should know better) think this adds credibility.
- Traders avidly consume these viewpoints and send emails and tweets to the CNBC team.
- Those reporting from the floors in NY and Chicago repeat these ideas, sometimes almost word-for-word.
The reports constitute valid information but misleading information. They show what short-term traders are thinking, but that may not be very helpful. The problem for investors with a longer time frame is that there is not enough context and perspective. It scares the daylights out of people who depend upon professional journalism to provide balance.
The content of these stories has little to do with long-term investment prospects, but plenty to do with selling page views and ratings!
Examples
CNBC offers some face time to analysts with various opinions. The skepticism is apparent for anyone who even thinks about the bright side. A guest who forecasts a rally of 15-20% is making a "bold call" or suggesting something crazy.
Try this recent appearance of Tony Dwyer, who sees the S&P at 1575 by the end of the year. (CNBC is having trouble with the embedded links again, so you will have to click through to watch).
"In fact Dwyer believes his target is conservative. “15 is the lowest non-recession multiple in a sub-3% core inflation environment. The average multiple is roughly 20 times so I believe we are being overly conservative – even with our new target of 1575,” he says.Looking at the fundamentals, Dwyer sees good things for the US economy.
“We’ve had an historic drop in interest rates as well as a huge drop in energy prices.” That’s good for consumers. And he adds we also have a slow recovery in housing – again bullish."
A guest who merely poses the possibility that earnings meet current expectations and the PE multiple gets to a conservative long-term average of 15, is viewed as crazy. This in spite of the low inflation and interest rates.
While you may not agree with the bullish analysis, it is mainstream thought for many of us, including big-time pension-fund managers. It is not the object of scorn. If the S&P reached 1500 to 1575, as the analysts suggest, could we really be surprised? After all, earnings are much higher now than when this level was reached in 2008.
Today's "Maria hour" included a story asking whether we are currently in a recession. Hardly anyone believes this, but those who trumpet the recession story get on TV. Those refuting this do not get the TV gigs. I am talking about the people that I feature each week: Doug Short, The RecessionAlert team, Bob Dieli, and The Bonddad Blog. How about equal time for them?
Shortly thereafter we had (yet another) interview with Harry Dent about Dow 3000. He was just on a couple of weeks ago! Why couldn't Maria use the time to interview someone with some solid stock ideas for the average investor? She challenged in her questions, but that is not the point. Don't the CNBC producers understand the effect of the repetitive Dow 3000 and "End of Stocks" headlines?
Conclusion
CNBC faced a tipping point several years ago. They lost sight of the fact that most people are investors. They are long the market. That is their natural audience. CNBC hosts do not need to be cheerleaders, but they do need to inform this audience.
Most of the active emails and tweets they get come from traders, many of whom see this as a game between bulls and bears. The coverage reflects this. The CNBC team started saying things like "It is a bad day for those long the market."
CNBC needs to decide whether to compete for the active trader and fear market, getting ever more negative and political, or to get back to their foundation of helping regular investors.
They are not helped by images of a car going off a cliff, or stories about Congress going on vacation. Their viewers need to know what segments of the market are cheap. How to succeed in the face of these threats. How to rebuild retirement.
I really hope that they get the message in time.
You are much kinder than I Jeff. I watched them for a year or so and got really tired of Santellis half-story rants, and the rest of the gang scrupulously avoiding any discussion that might be positive. Maria B. has great interviewing skills, but wastes them trying to tilt everything to the political right. Most of the interviewers seem to have the same problem. I have even seen them end an interview and instantly begin putting political slant on comments made that were totally unrelated.
I must say that of the GOP debates I watched, CNBC’s was the best hosted of a bad lot. Jack Welches hand appeared to be all over it however, and I wonder if that is not part of the problem today.
I watch financial TV looking for ideas and unbiased data. I do not want political advice from these folks.
well written piece…i used to be a junkie and then found bloomberg…i find bloomberg to be much more fact based and far less opinion…they could shut cnbc down and there would be no loss to relevant financial news…
Agree with all.
Too blatantly pro-GOP and political, especially in the morning with Squawk Box.
Worthy analysts get just a minute of face time and little opportunity to posit their theses. Often cut off in mid sentence.
Bloomberg is much more worthwhile and the discussions more fact based with no political slant.
I can’t watch them anymore. Joe Kernan and Rick Santelli have ruined Squawk Box with their rants and Jim Cramer has done the same with Squawk on the Street. I agree that they’ve become too political. I tried to e-mail them a couple of times and got insulted by Joe, so what’s the point? I’ll watch Betty Liu.
They had a great show when stocks were moving back in the 99 era with Yahoo going up huge everyday. I remember the KOPN CEO coming on CNBC and watching the stock rise as he starting talking. Those were the great days of yesterday. CNBC is a dying channel like CNN. Everyone is moving off cable and using the internet now.
Jeff,
I will echo Perry, “you are much kinder than I”. I do not think that CNBC’s problem is that they are not catering to investors. Their problem is that they are trying to out-Fox the Fix Business before it becomes a threat. In the process they are chaning their spots.
It used be on all the time in my office – I am a full time trader – not anymore. to me it seems that almost everything on CNBC is driven by either political of ideological considerations. Sqwak Box is a political show. Kudlow Show borders on propaganda. Closing Bell is not much better. CNBC anchors keep on letting their philosophy get in the way of news reporting and honest anaysis for the benefits investors and traders. They seem to be wanting to shape the national economic thinking rather than reporting and analyzing events.
The passing of Mark Hainz and exit by Buentt, Ratigan ans dome others removed a lot of obejctity from CNBC shows.
Disillusioned by CNBC, I switched to Bloomberg TV but it seems that they are also intent upon joining a race to the bottom. Now I listen to Bloomberg Radio, which still provides good coverage ofn financial news and analysis.
http://www.marketremarks.com
Opps, there are some obvious typos in my comment above. My bad.
I think the implication in your numbered list is right – the financial atmosphere has been poisoned almost single handedly by one website. And we all know who that is.
Incidentally, those blaming GOP slant are wrong. It’s the retardo-libertarian slant we need to get rid of.
I have CNBC on most of the time while I am working — but most of the time it is on mute! Their commentary has very little to offer me although I think the traders on Fast Money make useful comments. I listen to what they have to say. I agree the channe has become way too political.
I think CNBC ratings are down because the retail investor is less interested in stocks than anytime before. Many of us are sick of the Fed and politicians determining stock prices/action, so we’re just not involved. If you don’t care about the stock market, why would you watch CNBC? To hear Maria’s annoing, screeching voice? To watch them caress CEOs with easy questions (unforgettable Carl Quintanilla interviewing Allen Stanford)? Waste of time.
Jeff,
Thank you for writing this. I hope CNBC brass will sit up and pay attention. I too was a long-time viewer, mostly SquawkBox. But with Joe Kernen now sitting front and center, it’s nothing but a clown act. Case in point, I briefly caught this morning’s interview with founder and CEO of $TGI, Richard Ill. Kernen constantly cut him off. And most of the interview was spent listening to Kernen’s childish jokes about the last name of $TGI’s President, “Frisbee”. I felt deeply embarrassed for Mr. Ill. And unfortunately, we got nothing of value out of that interview.
SquawkBox no longer delivers useful informative. Discussion is discouraged. Guests are cut off at the knees. We are served with a constant plate of right wing politics. And Kernen spends all his time and efforts making childish jokes. I left Squawk months ago and migrated over to Tom and Ken on Bloomberg radio in the mornings. I am kicking myself that I had not done it sooner. I will not return to CNBC until they clean house. And Joe Kernen needs to be the first one out the door.
CNBC is in dire need of a total overhaul in their approach. Bloomberg radio is the place they should go for ideas and benchmarking. We actually hear in-depth and detailed discussion there. We hear the opinions of the guests, not the interviewers. There are no rants. There is little in the way of politics. We get valuable and tradeable information. And the guests list on Bloomberg Radio reads like a who’s who of the investment world – what CNBC used to be.
It’s an extremely sad situation, but understandable when viewed in the shoes of viewers who want/crave/need business and economic news. Bloomberg has it. CNBC used to have it. Now, hands down, Bloomberg is the place to be, and it shows in the rapid decline of CNBC’s ratings.
Jeff,
Turn on Bloomberg. You will find out why CNBC is getting killed. They have much more relevant discussions and never cringe worthy moments
I totally agree with John Fout. Bloomberg radio and TV are much more useful (and much less aggravating!), in my opinion.
CNBC’s talking heads are consistently horrible interviewers. (Andrew Ross Sorkin and Maria Bartiromo are the worst, but not the only offenders.) They don’t understand, if I tune in, it is because I want to hear the guest speak, not them. Sometimes they eat up the airtime that some intelligent person could be speaking so they can crack jokes. Brutal.
Meanwhile, on Bloomberg, guests actually get to complete sentences without interruptions. I can get some nuance from Bloomberg. From CNBC, I only get frustration.
Agree with all of the Bloomberg watchers above. I really haven’t watched CNBC much the past 4 or 5 years, only occasional interview clips linked from elsewhere online. Bloomberg, unlike CNBC (last I checked) is streamed online w/o subscription. While I agree that some of Bloomberg shows and new hires have recently leaned more CNBC-esque in terms of slickness and hype, it is still way better than CNBC, especially for in-depth interviews. As a Bay Area person I especially appreciate their substantial investment in the Bloomberg West daily hour, rather than the typical N.Y. approach of having one or two West Coast based reporters for a few minutes a day and parachuting the N.Y. “talent” in only on special occasions.
BTW, since a couple of commenters above mentioned Santelli’s ideological “rants” as a big turnoff, I’ll add that perhaps he best symbolizes how far the network as sunk. For the decade prior to his becoming the “Founding Father of the Tea-Party” or whatever he is now, I considered him to be pretty much the ne plus ultra of financial reporters. He was probably the only individual I would make a point of taking 60-90 seconds each morning to listen to because he had an unmatched ability to concisely and coherently explain what was happening in the bond markets, and why. But by the middle of 2009 or so, I had pretty much concluded he was unwatchable.
Not much to add to the assembled, but just by way of example, Santelli claimed that the case against Standard Chartered was “political.” Reason? Standard Charter issued a statement saying they weren’t wrong. Case closed.
Bloomberg is equally garbage, Sarah Isen, gimme a break. Makes Maria sOund like a genius.
Interesting. I also emailed CNBC a couple times and received insulting responses from Joe. His basic explanation was that their niche were old people watching business news in nursing homes, and he didn’t give a flip what the trading community wanted or cared about. Yeah, no kidding, they’ve made it obvious … and we’ve obviously all migrated away from CNBC and are firmly planted over at Bloomberg.
There’s another reason that CNBC lost audience though … the IPad and resulting Bloomberg radio app. Although Bloomberg TV is better than CNBC, I didn’t get it on cable. Had to pull it up via the web. And I hated having it as a drain on bandwidth, CPU and power supply. But the Bloomberg radio app with introduction to Tom and Ken was the nail in the CNBC coffin for me. That, and I just can’t stand the childishness of Joe Kernen.
Very well written. I couldn’t agree with you more! My frustration with CNBC drove me to write this blog post last week about just one segment (although I could have brought up other examples). Here it is: http://jcinvests.wordpress.com/2012/08/02/hard-hitting-financial-journalism/
Besides their political-editorilializing (as if we should even CARE what any of CNBC’s talking heads think) they are the most emotionally-driven “reporters” around. During the “tech boom” they never questioned valuations, during the “housing boom” they pooh-poohed EVERYone who questioned the parabolic rise in prices, and insulted every intelligent analysis of ongoing mortgage fraud, and then they cheered for the bank bailouts as if the banks were their good friends and neighbors. They consistently insult their best guests, cut them off mid-sentence, and feel every interview must be a 3 minute “segment” of pablum. Kudlow is the worst of all, but generally they’re all of the same automaton ilk, imo. Unwatchable.
Exactly. Bloomberg radio became my go-to morning show when I found myself screaming “shut-up for one f’ing second” to Kernan alone in my office.
I must disagree with you, Jeff. The reason CNBC is dying is they are a shrill for the uber rich / buisness /banking industry. Does anyone really believe the economy will fall off a (fiscal) cliff if Steve Forbes has to pay an extra 3% income tax? You hear that several times a day on CNBC. The reason the economy is dissed on CNBC is everyone is looking to slam the Obama economy which -while not great – isn’t bad either (as you suggest). The market has went from 900 to 1400 during Obama’s term – the market went from 1400 to 900 under Bush – I’ll take the Obama numbers, please.
It’s interesting that most of the above comments have to do with cnbc conservative slant. I agree. Cnbc has become so entwined with main stream wall street it can’t offer a differing opinion for fear of offending the street. It seems like the anchors live in a bubble. The can’t understand how their destroying the network with their narrow minded offensive behavior. I stopped watching a couple of years ago.
Bloomberg is a little better. It’s hard to find unbiased useful financial news. Everybody has an axe to grind. The old FNN use to be better it offered a wide range of opinion. Those days are gone.
Not only does the right wing slant grow wearisome, I hate their cult of personality: Rather than see Kernan mug for the camera or cut off information in mid sentence so he can insinuate the “truth” or inform us he took calculus I’d rather watch charts.
They have lost the art of interviewing and feel they MUST spin slant and interrupt their guests. It is obnoxious and stressful to watch.
The camels straw for me was when Kernan repeatedly interrupted guests predicting a spx 900 in late 07 and early 08: telling them how crazy they were and actually making fun of them. Kudlow, Kernan and Cramer: fire them and find a 21 yr old who can interview.
Right. Who wouldn’t believe a bank today?
It’s the producers who allow this crap to go on. And owners who are rubber stamping this multi year financial loss so they can tell us the drivel “truth” the RIGHT/gop way.
Sure Joe you sound great. Keep it up. Here’s a mirror. Nice tie.
Jeff,
Diagnosing what’s right or wrong at CNBC is akin to self-administering a Rorschach test. We all see in CNBC what we are predisposed to see.
If you are saying that their market coverage is slanted too much to the negative, I have to disagree. Jim Paulson, who has an endlessly sunny view of the markets, is a network staple. Throughout the day, long-only managers are featured, along with their touts. And the cheerleading at earnings time is palpable. Even the normally even-keeled Becky Quick sometimes gets overstimulated. BTE earnings stories get wide play, while WTE stories are typically dropped like a hot potato. There are some exceptions, of course, if the storyline is a FB or a CMG.
Confident longs shouldn’t fear Zero Hedge. I think to claim that ZH is steering a meaningful degree of content at CNBC is without merit. In the marketplace of ideas, ZH will lose cred and ultimately fail if their writings are consistently wrong. Squelching ZH is no fix for CNBC. C’mon.
I think CNBC is stuck in the middle, between Bloomberg and the clown shows at Fox.
And I agree with many others here that Joe Kernan has become utterly unwatchable. He is jumped the shark years ago, and is an unentertaining parody of himself. He can’t sign with Fox soon enough.
Who needs business news and commentary when the markets are driven entirely by central planners?
We haven’t had capital markets or price discovery since at least 2008.
Thanks to everyone for a great discussion — many useful ideas.
I mostly said my piece in the post, but I might emphasize one thing. I was not writing about personal taste. I can sort through bad arguments and turn on the mute button if it gets loud. I also watch Bloomberg, the Sunday morning shows, and the Newshour on PBS. Why these? I am trying to keep in touch with the perspective of the average investor.
My evaluation here is how this audience is being served. We know that many have been encouraged to be market timers and/or day traders. Or else they have been scared out.
Thanks again to all.
Jeff
My thoughts on CNBC in 2009 here.
We had a good run, but it’s over. I was one of the original Maria Bartiromo Fan Club. But CNBC has degraded to the point where it’s unwatchable. This happened a long time ago, but I held on. I’m a romantic.
It started with that buffoon Jim Cramer getting his afternoon/evening show where his antics are designed to lure individual investors into hyperactive trading styles sure to blow up their accounts for the benefit of Wall Street. Bear Stearns is not in trouble! BUY BUY BUY!
And the 5pm Fast Money show was a roundtable of egos offering their opinions, but no information. So we watched during market hours, then turned it off. We didn’t want to admit it, but the market hours coverage is now just as bad. It’s wall-to-wall cheerleading bimbos. And I’m not just talking about the eye candy. Dennis Kneale is the biggest bimbo of all. What on his resume other than playing a bit part in Rent in his high school drama production qualifies him to be a business journalist?
So we’re cutting over to Bloomberg TV. They have the eye candy there, too, but they take the news seriously. And they’re much more even-handed and even-tempered than the Cheerleading Nitwits Bubble Channel.
I’ll miss you, Rick Santelli, and even you, Charlie Gasparino, on your good days. Why don’t you go work for a real business news channel?
CNBC is too negative? Please.
Look at the market from 1915 to 1995, 80 years of investing, buy and hold, fundamnentals, etc.
Now look at the last 17 years after the introduction of computers, the internet, HFT, algo mo quant bots, etc. etc. etc. and tell me the market has not changed profoundly and irreversably.
The market has returned ZERO to buy and hold retail investors (you know like mom and pop sucker patsy’s who listen to their stock / fund salesmen “financial advisors”) for almost an entire generation of investors.
You don’t get it, dude.
BJ — In 1995 the Dow was at 4000….
I like wide-ranging comments, but I urge you to be careful in what you say about the role of financial advisors. Ultimately we succeed only if our clients do. We do not depend on a rising stock market. Many of us have strategies for bonds, inverse ETFs, and sideways markets.
None of the things you mention is interfering with these strategies, suggesting that you might be an unwitting victim of some source of misinformation.
Meanwhile, feel free to join in —
(signed) Dude … er … Jeff
I apologize if this repeats some of what’s above.
1. Contrast Joe Kernen with Bloomberg’s Tom Keene. Forget everything else — there really is no comparison. Joe still hasn’t gotten over the fact that he’s on Television — where Tom has a face made for radio, and he seems to (still) know that.
2. Cramer might have a great history, but he is yesterday’s news.
3. Speaking of Cramer: I’ve read that TheStreet.com is doing poorly. So is CNBC. Is there a relationship between those 2 developments . . . i.e., not the relationship between the 2 organizations, but some kind of change in — the audience?
4. Speaking of the audience: I read a GMO piece recently that says the S&P 500 (in real terms) is down 15% since March 2000. Do you think THAT might have soured investors on watching CNBC and/or subscribing to TheStreet.com? The “promise” was 7% to 10% gains every year, forever and ever, amen!
5. I’ve spoken to other people who check in on the “mysterious” website referred in your item 3. You know, the one that starts with a Z. Judging by what I do, and what others say they do — there’s a lot of picking and choosing among the Chinese menu there, and NOT (as you seem to maintain) a lot of wholesale swallowing of every cotton-pickin word and idea promoted.
6. Finally, as to whether the Z website’s “credibility” should be in question — and of course IT SHOULD — those of us who have tried to invest are down 15% over a 12-year period. The economy is as weak as a kitten despite heavy borrowing for the future (by the politicans) and significant money-printing (by the central bankers) — not just here, but elsewhere.
With all of that as background, I intend to become relentlessly positive — as soon as
(a) I take a drive and see no one driving a multi-ton vehicle @ 60MPH . . . while talking on a cell phone, swerving into my lane, and generally acting like a person who does not value life (not my life, not his/her life).
(b) US citizens push their savings rate to some high-single-digit number, like maybe 8% or 9%
(c) Our politicians tackle the current problems and come up with a WORKABLE compromise solution. Then they can go on to figure out how the country can cope with Medicare.
That’s not a lot to ask. Really.
I had to turn off CNBC because of Kernan and Santelli. I used to like both those guys before they became political hacks. I don’t know how even a Republican zombie could watch that stuff.
This is a TERRIBLE article!
CNBC has NEVER had any credibility – Larry Kudlow is a coke addict – Cramer is a fool who is always wrong.
It’s pump and dump at its worst – infotainmentbusinessnews….
The reason ratings are down is because the masses have realized the game it rigged and CNBC is part of the machine sucking up to those who rig it.
And they are tuning out
Amen to all — and even if I agree with him, Larry Kudlow hasn’t had a new thought in years – how many time do I need to hear it.
Someone with a sense of humor sent my post to customer support at CNBC using my email address!
I got an automated reply saying that they cared about me and would get back to me within 24 hours (already overdue).
They also sent an automated reply with a list of topics that might be helpful — things like the difference between the S&P cash and futures, pair trades, and the like. Perhaps not so relevant to what we are talking about.
How sad. More later, if/when they follow up.
Jeff (AKA – “Dude”)
I’m an expat investor living in Thailand. In terms of both usefulness and interest, Squawkbox Asia is good, Squawkbox Europe is very good and Squawkbox USA is crap. I’m politically right of center and a strong believer in capitalism but the crude, mindless, right wing ranting of Kernen, Caruso Cabrera, Santelli and Kudlow sends me straight to the barf bucket. Bartiromo is well passed her “used by date” and should wash her hair more often. I rarely watch CNBC USA anymore except if I know of a good guest coming on and hoping he/she will not be constantly interrupted.
For North American programing stay with Bloomberg or go to BNN Toronto-if you can get it live. If not try the videos.
With all the financial people in the NYC area, I’m astonished CNBC can’t easily replace the unwatchable buffoons (Kernan, Maria, Brian whatever, Mandy whatever, Michelle C-C, etc.) and instruct its talking heads in basic courtesy: do NOT interrupt each other or their interviewees. Sheesh–it can’t be simpler.
Kudos to the good ones: Becky Quick, David Faber, Melissa Lee.
Jeff, you absolutely nailed it on this one!
I have nothing to add but do hope this lands on the proper desks at CNBC. I gave up long ago on this bunch. Keyword: Inferior Content.
Aahhh….very funny. I have it on all day, also. However, I see such a left leaning political slant that I almost throw up. Maybe I remember that back in 2008, every forth word out of Mellissa Lee’s mouth was Barack Obama.
You guys are kidding right?
Melissa Lee wnt to Harvard. Degree in Politics. When was she there? Check it out.
All they talked about this afternoon was how I need to pay more taxes. They didn’t mention that we now have 100,000,000 people receiving welfare checks.
jr
Yes Jeff. They have lost their mojo.
The only one sane at CNBC now is Steve Liesman who tries hard to speak about facts and ideas as oppose to spin. Perhaps Becky Quick and few others but these are not as loud as the ideological idiots that shout. Santelli anyone.
My money is not an ideology so idots like Kudlow or Michelle Caruso-Cabrera who, as a believer in merit-employment, should be the first one fired.
Along with Liesman they may wanna bring in the Chinese guy Bernie Lo who is on the international and attempts to be free of ideological spin that has taken over the network.
This is old news finally showing up in ratings.
CNBC made a habit a long time a go of cutting off interviewees, interjecting with their own opinions and agendas. Mark Andrews, may he rest in peace, was no exception.
I switched to Bloomberg radio years ago. I say good riddance.
We need expert opinions on multiple subjects, not a media circus.
Great post! CNBC is now an infomercial for day trade brokers and gold bugs. They close one show on Friday saying, “your next chance to place a currency trade is Sunday!” Was this line written by the advertisers?
Actual journalists should not have a political agenda. CNBC is trying the Fox formula – personality talk shows that echo the viewer’s ideas.
Bloomberg is much better for actual analysis.
CNBC is so far past it’s Mojo stage, they are strictly a tool of HBB to get people to move the wrong direction on trades.
Jeff: Thanks for bringing some fresh light to the issue of when business news strayed from news to entertainment/politics. I’ve been managing money for nearly forty years and I thought the advent of the internet and cable television would level the playing field. It hasn’t: it has only provided a platform for those who can afford to make the most noise, create a new headline or find something wrong with everyone else!