CNBC woes - am I alone in my anger?
- Thread starter rickf
- Start date
my disappointment with cnbc is because they don't have as many touts on pumping (fade on the pump) stocks.
i used to call my wife in to watch when a stock was pumped on cnbc, the runup, and then my short.
changes i've noticed over the last year+ include
> a taming down / changing role of mark haines (who used to question a LOT of stuff) and no more ted david, and where's insana?
> more of a cheerleading attitude. they've always had somewhat of one - namely among the financially less-educated announcers - but it's grown significantly.
i *suspect* they realize that they gain more viewers by being positive than negative, although in negative markets, i'd guess the programming will be more along scare tactics ("you MUST watch this program to protect your portfolio!") combined with "how to profit when others are losing their shirts".
> MUCH more of a political bent , and a larger area of 'gossip'. also see jane wells.
> the darren rovell pieces. i like seeing them, but they generally aren't of use for equity traders.
i was talking with a trader who has cnbc on his desk on mute (he's got something else on there as well but has no control over it), and we came up with something:
(theory) cnbc is targetted towards people who AREN'T active in the markets, but are either curious, or wish they WERE active in the markets. it becomes weak reality financial tv.
(edit: and people who have 401ks, etc. can 'root' for their team - the dow, though if they knew better, it would be the s&p - to 'win' or go up).
i used to call my wife in to watch when a stock was pumped on cnbc, the runup, and then my short.
changes i've noticed over the last year+ include
> a taming down / changing role of mark haines (who used to question a LOT of stuff) and no more ted david, and where's insana?
> more of a cheerleading attitude. they've always had somewhat of one - namely among the financially less-educated announcers - but it's grown significantly.
i *suspect* they realize that they gain more viewers by being positive than negative, although in negative markets, i'd guess the programming will be more along scare tactics ("you MUST watch this program to protect your portfolio!") combined with "how to profit when others are losing their shirts".
> MUCH more of a political bent , and a larger area of 'gossip'. also see jane wells.
> the darren rovell pieces. i like seeing them, but they generally aren't of use for equity traders.
i was talking with a trader who has cnbc on his desk on mute (he's got something else on there as well but has no control over it), and we came up with something:
(theory) cnbc is targetted towards people who AREN'T active in the markets, but are either curious, or wish they WERE active in the markets. it becomes weak reality financial tv.
(edit: and people who have 401ks, etc. can 'root' for their team - the dow, though if they knew better, it would be the s&p - to 'win' or go up).
Quote from optioncoach:
when are you people going to realize that TV = Entertainment.
It is a business and it is about ratings. Do you think the 6:00 News is an altruistic venture to inform people of what is going on in the world are is ABC, NBC, CBS and FOX competing for your attention so they can claim high viewership to sell more advertising.
If many of you start to realize this obvious facet of TV = Entertainment, then we will stop having these silly posts about CNBC over and over again.
Anyone who watches CNBC and is disappointed with Cramer, constant cheeiring in bull markets, stupid meaningless competitions and attractive empty headed tele-prompter readers then I cannot imagine what you think of regular TV...
Put it on for news and when data is released and then mute it the rest of the day. If you are trading you have live data in front of you anyway and any internet news site will report things faster.
Could not have said it better. CNBC and the rest of TV is pure entertainment and should be treated as such, nothing more.
yeah CNBC sucks but Bloomberg doesn't do it . CNBC gives a better summary of the day's action at the close and better commentary before the open.I wish they wouldget rid of Bartiromo, Quick and the other Bartiromo wannabe who I used to like but now can no longer stand. Also Quintanilla, the guy gets on my nerves
Anyone is a CNBCPlus subcriber ?
Do you also get those "we are in commercial break ,CNBC PLus will resume in.. messages. It drives me absolutely crazy. I have to turn the volume up and down constantly on my PC.
Anyone is a CNBCPlus subcriber ?
Do you also get those "we are in commercial break ,CNBC PLus will resume in.. messages. It drives me absolutely crazy. I have to turn the volume up and down constantly on my PC.
There is NO cheerleading or cheesy bullshit on Bloomberg, period.
Just substantive commentary by market professionals, in calm, subdued, rational discussions, and NO splashy graphics, 'record close part hat crap', blaring sound effects, or any of that other intensely annoying crap.
Bloomberg also scrolls all futures prices on the screen, whereas CNBC only covered the basics, like crude, copper, rbob, blah blah.
Like I said earlier, I can literally have Bloomberg on in my office with volume on, whereas I had to mute CNBC before, because it was so obnoxious and over the top.
Watch Bloomberg for 10 minutes and you will immediately see the qualitative difference.
Just substantive commentary by market professionals, in calm, subdued, rational discussions, and NO splashy graphics, 'record close part hat crap', blaring sound effects, or any of that other intensely annoying crap.
Bloomberg also scrolls all futures prices on the screen, whereas CNBC only covered the basics, like crude, copper, rbob, blah blah.
Like I said earlier, I can literally have Bloomberg on in my office with volume on, whereas I had to mute CNBC before, because it was so obnoxious and over the top.
Watch Bloomberg for 10 minutes and you will immediately see the qualitative difference.
I can't recall any TV commercial getting my attention, much less business. Some have played a dozen times, and I don't know what it is they sell.
It seems to me, that ET would have a higher bang for the buck rate than CNBC any day of the week. Why would a guy like Bright, or those type vendors, advertise anyplace else but here?
I can see Etrade and the like looking for new suckers, but other than that, I don't get it.
I just leave it off, unless a service says Joe Blow is on, and something is moving.
I wonder if Baron will give me a free subscription to ET because I said something nice?
It seems to me, that ET would have a higher bang for the buck rate than CNBC any day of the week. Why would a guy like Bright, or those type vendors, advertise anyplace else but here?
I can see Etrade and the like looking for new suckers, but other than that, I don't get it.
I just leave it off, unless a service says Joe Blow is on, and something is moving.
I wonder if Baron will give me a free subscription to ET because I said something nice?
Bloomberg TV is a secondary output that does not need flashy gimmicks. Bloomy makes millions on its terminals and access to data and all that fancy stuff so its TV spots dont need to generate fancy gimiicks to get viewers since it is not live or die with ratings and money like CNBC is.
Kind of like why microsoft does not need to make money on X-box really. So Bloomy can offer a no frills package on finance cause its real money center is the other parts of the business.
CNCB is a whore to ratings and thus you get what you see.
Kind of like why microsoft does not need to make money on X-box really. So Bloomy can offer a no frills package on finance cause its real money center is the other parts of the business.
CNCB is a whore to ratings and thus you get what you see.