Friday, April 07, 2006
Can This Be True?
Before I get into this post, I want to ask you to think a little deeper and not take this is just another piece that picks on bubble vision.
Earlier in the week Bob Pisani was talking very forcefully about how great the market is right here. People accuse him of cheerleading and ok I get that but this felt different to me and it seemed strange, of course this post would have more credibility had I mentioned it earlier.
I did not share his view in fact I think it would be reasonable to label my comments as cautious. I had a thought about Pisani's commentary, I wonder if he really does not understand the thing he has been reporting on for so many years. This is not about saying he or the network has an agenda but if really does not understand capital markets. I'm not saying wrong sometimes, I am wondering if he has any kind of understanding at all (not sarcastic humor).
Here is an analogy that might hold up. The extent of my knowledge about how the court system works comes from TV shows. However realistic or unrealistic shows like LA Law or Law and Order might have been, that is the sum total. So how qualified am I to do commentary for Court TV? I have no real understanding.
This is where we might be with a lot of the on air personalities. Perhaps one way to judge these folks is by what questions they come up with when an interview goes off script. If Bob is telling the truth about how much he talks to traders then it makes sense to wonder if anything half-way intelligent you have ever heard him say came from one of those traders he is always talking to.
CNBC was working Alexis Glick into Bob's role before she left to do the today show. Rick Santelli, as a former trader, seems to be working out. I have to think they could find a half dozen reasonably telegenic people to come work for the network which would make the information more valuable.
Earlier in the week Bob Pisani was talking very forcefully about how great the market is right here. People accuse him of cheerleading and ok I get that but this felt different to me and it seemed strange, of course this post would have more credibility had I mentioned it earlier.
I did not share his view in fact I think it would be reasonable to label my comments as cautious. I had a thought about Pisani's commentary, I wonder if he really does not understand the thing he has been reporting on for so many years. This is not about saying he or the network has an agenda but if really does not understand capital markets. I'm not saying wrong sometimes, I am wondering if he has any kind of understanding at all (not sarcastic humor).
Here is an analogy that might hold up. The extent of my knowledge about how the court system works comes from TV shows. However realistic or unrealistic shows like LA Law or Law and Order might have been, that is the sum total. So how qualified am I to do commentary for Court TV? I have no real understanding.
This is where we might be with a lot of the on air personalities. Perhaps one way to judge these folks is by what questions they come up with when an interview goes off script. If Bob is telling the truth about how much he talks to traders then it makes sense to wonder if anything half-way intelligent you have ever heard him say came from one of those traders he is always talking to.
CNBC was working Alexis Glick into Bob's role before she left to do the today show. Rick Santelli, as a former trader, seems to be working out. I have to think they could find a half dozen reasonably telegenic people to come work for the network which would make the information more valuable.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)





7 comments:
Roger,
I agree with you, Pisani's clueless. He brings no value added and repeats himself all day. One thing that really bothera me is that he always says "brokerage stocks are up, bank stocks are up, insurance stocks are up, instead of just saying the following are "all up". He seems to be trying kill time. Art Cashen from UBS should do that job.
Bartiromo is the absolute worst. She's telegenic enough, but completely clueless. Sometimes it comes across blindingly.
I miss Alwxis Glick. She was eye candy and very smart. Let's start a movement to bring her back. MG
I only found entertainment value in CNBC. I knew that would not last long. And, when they moved the indices ticker to the top of the screen and studded their chart presentations with whooshing sounds and other cheap gimmicks, I had enough. I don't watch at all anymore.
Bloomberg TV's Julie Hyman is streets ahead of Maria B & very incisive.
Agree about Julie.
But, Roger...you honestly thought they knew what they were saying---no, I mean understood what they were saying? If you watch and listen, it is easy to see/tell that they just read the script. Then they go home and play X-Box.
It's ALL hype. It's Entertainment. It's a Business set up to make money by selling ads.
Do we really think CNBC is offering us REAL INFORMATION for free? WE get what we pay for.
g
"It is better to remain silent and be thought of as a fool than to speak and remove all doubt"
Sadly a good lot of the financial news anchors have no clue what they are talking about. It amazes me that they put these people on the air!
Just watch today's interview with Jim Rogers on Bloomberg and listen to the ridiculous questions that they are wasting his time with.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/av/
Post a Comment