My Photo
Note: Jeff does not accept guest blog posts on A Dash of Insight.

For inquiries regarding advertising and republication, contact [email protected]

Follow Jeff on Twitter!

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner


  • Seeking Alpha
    Seeking Alpha Certified
  • AllTopSites
    Alltop, all the top stories
  • iStockAnalyst
Talk Markets
Forexpros Contributor
Copyright 2005-2014
All Rights Reserved

« Final Notice to Our RSS Feed Subscribers | Main | Weighing the Week Ahead: Time for Politics? »

August 06, 2012


Larry L

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!


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.


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.

Rick Weeks

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.


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.

Jack Reacher

Yes Jeff. They have lost their mojo.

Jack Reacher

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.



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.


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.

Peter Davies

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.


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")


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.

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

Wells Fargo Must Die

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.

Joe S formerly of Brooklyn

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 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 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.


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

Booty Juice

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.


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?


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.



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.

The comments to this entry are closed.