Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Wow. Take a couple of days off and the natives go nuts.
Three boards ago (the great grandfather of MFO), Gary Smith said he never watched the business channel with volume on. He just read the tape. Just watched Captain Price.
Kernan seems to be trying out for Fox. I prefer Bloomberg but really just want all the content. No volume. It's tough. Geez, they've added reality tv to the bloody weather channel. Oh really?!?
How about Saturday morning on Fox with their 4 half hour business programs? Bulls & Bears, etc. I used to really try to watch it . . .
"If someone is right wing or left wing on the media, who cares. Everything is biased. "
I don't watch CNBC much but when I do I glean the info I want and let the BS drift away. I watch Bloomberg since it is the only financial channel on my cable. Many of the Bloomies have moved on to CNBC as of late. Susan Li was getting too showy anyway.
Firing Joe might be too harsh. I actually enjoy his comments and asides most of the time. In any event, I don't watch CNBC for the opinions of the CNBC employees; I am interested in what the GUESTS have to say. I think CNBC provides a valuable service in airing what those guests have to say, and I think most viewers can benefit from that service. Joe tees them up and questions them adequately most of the time.
But Joe's biased treatment of political subjects and guests I find irritating and jarring. Guests who agree with Joe's conservative bias get treated much better than those who are liberal or who disagree. Conservative guests don't get asked the tough questions; their sometimes questionable statements don't get challenged by Joe and the panel the way they should. That is particularly evident when Donald Trump is a guest. Obvious misstatements of facts and illogical arguments go unchallenged.
A word from the producers, combined with showing Joe an hour or so of his politically biased comments and rants, which should not be hard to find, so Joe knows what is turning viewers off, should be the first step in toning Joe down, I would think. Then see if it works.
On May 5, which I believe was the last time Mr. Trump was personally on Squawk Box (not remotely), Joe and his colleagues on the desk missed several opportunities to challenge Mr. Trump on some of his economic ideas. I think a basic function of the press and media when it comes to covering politicians, who seek to serve the public good, is to challenge politicians’ questionable ideas, policies, and plans. Squawk Box does a poor job of that, perhaps because the producers are more interested in ratings than they are in providing useful information to their viewers.
For example, on May 5, someone, I think Andrew Ross Sorkin, asked Mr. Trump what he would do first to create jobs after taking office. He answered "Renegotiate our trade agreements."
Here was a great opportunity for CNBC to point out that: (1) renegotiating trade agreements would take years to do, (2) the president could negotiate and renegotiate agreements, but did not have the power to put new agreements in place, (3) according to the Constitution, all such agreements must be ratified by Congress, and (4) in the meantime, the uncertainty regarding the outcome would COST us jobs, instead of creating them. Moreover, if the trade agreements Mr. Trump has in mind involve tariffs, they would DESTROY JOBS, not create them.
Mr. Trump’s answer made no sense at all. Yet no one on the broadcast challenged him, leaving viewers in the dark on this. Instead of challenging the statement, Joe changed the subject and immediately asked Trump about his immigration views.
During that same May 5 interview, Mr. Trump suggested that if a crash came, the U.S. could “make a deal” with its creditors so the U.S. would not have to repay 100 cents of every dollar of federal debt. That may be OK in the real estate world, but it would be catastrophic for the United States government. But no one on the CNBC panel said a word.
On June 2, CNBC guest host and former GE CEO Jack Welch said on CNBC that although Ted Cruz was his first choice, he supports Trump because backing Trump is the practical, pragmatic thing to do, even though he does not agree with everything Trump says he wants to do, and that Republicans who have refused to support Trump, like Mitt Romney, have displayed a “lack of pragmatism” that is hard to understand. Joe agreed, and said the behavior of the “elitist morons” who won’t support Trump is “pathological.” I thought that instead of agreeing with his guest, Joe should have asked his guest what is pragmatic about lending support to a candidate who is almost certain to lose in November.
Joe should have gone on to ask his guest (and past guests who support Trump) why it is they don’t help the RNC to turn the tide AGAINST this “presumptive” nominee who is likely to lose badly in November, so the GOP can finally nominate someone like Kasich, who can win. Supporting the RNC in that effort and refusing to back Trump, as Hewlett Packard, Microsoft, Coca Cola, Intel, the companies who advertise on televised PGA Tour golf matches, and many others were doing was the pragmatic thing to do at that time, in my opinion.
In general, every time a guest or a member of the CNBC team on Squawk Box says something negative about Trump, Joe gets excited, jumps all over the person, keeps interrupting the person, and won’t let the person talk. It is very noticeable and a very unattractive bias. You don’t try to shut down opposing positions. That is what Mr. Trump wants to do and that is what our government would do under him. CNBC should NOT be doing it.
@Buysider: Suggest you take this nonsense somewhere else !!!!!!!!!!!! This is a mutual fund discussion board, not a soap-box !!!!! Upon further review of the thread, I discovered that I was part of the nonsense ! Regards, Ted
Couldn't agree MORE re Joe and ALL the Squawk Box crew. They've really overstayed their welcome. But the same can be said of all-day financial news networks generally. Its a holdover from the 90's bull market. Besides NOT THAT MUCH HAPPENS in the markets EVERY day that is noteworthy. But the cast & crew show up every day and have to fill the time, trying to impress their viewers how important today's change in prices is "relevant" --- what are they going to say, "nothing important is going on today, but stay tuned in"...? CNBC, Bloomberg, and Fox Business (like so many cable channels) do not exist in their current form ("forced programming", every market day, all market-day) because their programming serves a real purpose --- they exist because they serve a targeted demographic for advertisers.
I distinctly recall a precursor to CNBC & Bloomberg. (in the early/mid80's, if I recollect ) on my then local market (St.Louis) on an independent station. The programming, which ran during the hours the stock market was open, consisted of a ticker-tape at the bottom of the screen, advertisements above the tape, and elevator music playing constantly; mostly Adult Contemporary. No talking heads.
Muzak is more pleasant than Joe, Carl and Rick Santelli. Though I confess to tuning into Melissa Lee's program with thoughts on things OTHER than financial....
You made some great points. Couldn't agree more on most of what you said. As a recovering daytime CNBC addict, I haven't paid much attention to them in years. Was surprised J K is still around. Kinda like coming across an old beaten up '59 Chev or Edsel that's still running. Brings back memories - but never was the prettiest car on the road.
BTW - Bloomberg also has a few good lookers, and they sometimes dress to kill. But for a combination of pointed insights and quick dry humor I'll take Bernie Lo on CNBC West (evenings/limited markets) any time. The guy could be talking about golf, food or knitting and I'd still find it interesting.
Comments
Three boards ago (the great grandfather of MFO), Gary Smith said he never watched the business channel with volume on. He just read the tape. Just watched Captain Price.
Kernan seems to be trying out for Fox. I prefer Bloomberg but really just want all the content. No volume. It's tough. Geez, they've added reality tv to the bloody weather channel. Oh really?!?
How about Saturday morning on Fox with their 4 half hour business programs? Bulls & Bears, etc. I used to really try to watch it . . .
peace,
rono
"If someone is right wing or left wing on the media, who cares. Everything is biased. "
I don't watch CNBC much but when I do I glean the info I want and let the BS drift away. I watch Bloomberg since it is the only financial channel on my cable. Many of the Bloomies have moved on to CNBC as of late. Susan Li was getting too showy anyway.
She went to CNBC. I think she is still based in Hong Kong. I just watched her a short while ago.
But Joe's biased treatment of political subjects and guests I find irritating and jarring. Guests who agree with Joe's conservative bias get treated much better than those who are liberal or who disagree. Conservative guests don't get asked the tough questions; their sometimes questionable statements don't get challenged by Joe and the panel the way they should. That is particularly evident when Donald Trump is a guest. Obvious misstatements of facts and illogical arguments go unchallenged.
A word from the producers, combined with showing Joe an hour or so of his politically biased comments and rants, which should not be hard to find, so Joe knows what is turning viewers off, should be the first step in toning Joe down, I would think. Then see if it works.
On May 5, which I believe was the last time Mr. Trump was personally on Squawk Box (not remotely), Joe and his colleagues on the desk missed several opportunities to challenge Mr. Trump on some of his economic ideas. I think a basic function of the press and media when it comes to covering politicians, who seek to serve the public good, is to challenge politicians’ questionable ideas, policies, and plans. Squawk Box does a poor job of that, perhaps because the producers are more interested in ratings than they are in providing useful information to their viewers.
For example, on May 5, someone, I think Andrew Ross Sorkin, asked Mr. Trump what he would do first to create jobs after taking office. He answered "Renegotiate our trade agreements."
Here was a great opportunity for CNBC to point out that: (1) renegotiating trade agreements would take years to do, (2) the president could negotiate and renegotiate agreements, but did not have the power to put new agreements in place, (3) according to the Constitution, all such agreements must be ratified by Congress, and (4) in the meantime, the uncertainty regarding the outcome would COST us jobs, instead of creating them. Moreover, if the trade agreements Mr. Trump has in mind involve tariffs, they would DESTROY JOBS, not create them.
Mr. Trump’s answer made no sense at all. Yet no one on the broadcast challenged him, leaving viewers in the dark on this. Instead of challenging the statement, Joe changed the subject and immediately asked Trump about his immigration views.
During that same May 5 interview, Mr. Trump suggested that if a crash came, the U.S. could “make a deal” with its creditors so the U.S. would not have to repay 100 cents of every dollar of federal debt. That may be OK in the real estate world, but it would be catastrophic for the United States government. But no one on the CNBC panel said a word.
On June 2, CNBC guest host and former GE CEO Jack Welch said on CNBC that although Ted Cruz was his first choice, he supports Trump because backing Trump is the practical, pragmatic thing to do, even though he does not agree with everything Trump says he wants to do, and that Republicans who have refused to support Trump, like Mitt Romney, have displayed a “lack of pragmatism” that is hard to understand. Joe agreed, and said the behavior of the “elitist morons” who won’t support Trump is “pathological.” I thought that instead of agreeing with his guest, Joe should have asked his guest what is pragmatic about lending support to a candidate who is almost certain to lose in November.
Joe should have gone on to ask his guest (and past guests who support Trump) why it is they don’t help the RNC to turn the tide AGAINST this “presumptive” nominee who is likely to lose badly in November, so the GOP can finally nominate someone like Kasich, who can win. Supporting the RNC in that effort and refusing to back Trump, as Hewlett Packard, Microsoft, Coca Cola, Intel, the companies who advertise on televised PGA Tour golf matches, and many others were doing was the pragmatic thing to do at that time, in my opinion.
In general, every time a guest or a member of the CNBC team on Squawk Box says something negative about Trump, Joe gets excited, jumps all over the person, keeps interrupting the person, and won’t let the person talk. It is very noticeable and a very unattractive bias. You don’t try to shut down opposing positions. That is what Mr. Trump wants to do and that is what our government would do under him. CNBC should NOT be doing it.
Regards,
Ted
I distinctly recall a precursor to CNBC & Bloomberg. (in the early/mid80's, if I recollect ) on my then local market (St.Louis) on an independent station. The programming, which ran during the hours the stock market was open, consisted of a ticker-tape at the bottom of the screen, advertisements above the tape, and elevator music playing constantly; mostly Adult Contemporary. No talking heads.
Muzak is more pleasant than Joe, Carl and Rick Santelli.
Though I confess to tuning into Melissa Lee's program with thoughts on things OTHER than financial....
You made some great points. Couldn't agree more on most of what you said. As a recovering daytime CNBC addict, I haven't paid much attention to them in years. Was surprised J K is still around. Kinda like coming across an old beaten up '59 Chev or Edsel that's still running. Brings back memories - but never was the prettiest car on the road.
BTW - Bloomberg also has a few good lookers, and they sometimes dress to kill. But for a combination of pointed insights and quick dry humor I'll take Bernie Lo on CNBC West (evenings/limited markets) any time. The guy could be talking about golf, food or knitting and I'd still find it interesting.