The Real Problem with CNBC

I know that Jon Stewart and Jim Cramer have been in a bit of a "fight" lately. Of course, it's not really a fight because Stewart isn't doing this to pick a fight with Cramer or because he doesn't like him. He's making fun of him -- because that's what he does.

Stewart also makes fun of Obama from time to time (check out him ripping Obama here). Does this mean he doesn't like Obama? No, it means he's a comedian. Over the last couple of days Cramer and Joe Scarborough have been using that word as a pejorative, but that's the guy's job -- to make people laugh. They are pissed because he's good at it.

But if they think there is a kernel of truth in what Stewart is saying -- which, of course, is why they're actually angry -- they're right. Stewart also wants to make you think about what the role of the media is. And when you think about that in regard to CNBC, Jim Cramer is the least of their problems.

In fact, I don't blame Cramer at all (disclaimer: he's been on our show and I had a friendly interaction with him personally once). Everybody knows what Cramer does -- he yells and screams about his stock predictions. That's his job. You'd have to be crazy to think Cramer knows everything and that you should invest all of your money purely based on what he says. And I think he would be the first to admit that.

That's not the problem with CNBC. The real problem is their reporting -- or lack thereof. The CNBC reporters and anchors make the Bush press corps look like draconian inquisitors. They are obsessed with access. This is a problem with all of the media, and something Jon Stewart points out all the time. But it is particularly acute at CNBC (and all other business news channels).

I have a close friend who works at a business news station -- and here is the worst kept secret in show business -- it's all about the access. If you piss off the CEOs or the companies, you're going to get a call from your boss. You have jeopardized our relationship with them!

That is very thinly disguised code words for -- don't ever say anything negative about a company we cover otherwise your job is in the trouble. The message is clear -- go along to get along. This isn't journalism. It's public relations by another name.

CNBC never did any exposés about the enormous risks these financial companies took. They never exposed the insanity of the derivatives market. And they never told their audience that the executives of these companies have been robbing their shareholders blind. Because they didn't see that as their job. They saw their job as doing whatever it took to keep Wall Street happy and playing ball with them.

They were part of the broken system. There was no journalism going on at CNBC. That is what our underlying complaint is. That is what CNBC continues to miss to this day as they try to defend themselves by saying their words were taken out of context. The problem was the context!

Will they straighten ship and start doing real investigative journalism uncovering the abuses of Wall Street now that they have been called out. I doubt it. That's not how they're structured. They don't view the average guy in their audience or the American public overall as their main constituency. They view Wall Street as their constituency. So, they will continue to serve them.

I don't say this because I have some sort of axe to grind with CNBC. They didn't lose me any money (that was the upside of having no money to lose before the crash). I don't even begrudge them what they do. I get it. They do fluff pieces on Wall Street. So, if you want to know what the companies are telling the public, check out CNBC. That's also a service. Buyer beware. If you want hard hitting business journalism, look elsewhere.

I don't have a problem with that. The question is, does CNBC? If they can make their peace with that, then they should carry on. If they want to change that image, then they have to change the reality. It's up to them. I'm wildly indifferent either way (as long as they don't pretend to be something they're not). It depends on what they think their role is. And that's for them to decide.

Young Turks on You Tube.

Comments

[valerief]

Teevee for entertainment is occasionally just fine. Teevee for information is virtually crap with a few exceptions. If people want information, they have to accept they're not gonna get it from teevee. Even if they have to scrap their cable/satellite subscription to save $$$, they should get a computer and ISP and get their information from the internet. There's a lot of crap in the net, but at least there are pockets of information, as opposed to mostly misinformation on teevee.

[ToddRoyer]

Newspapers used to be the backbone of investigative journalism and there were enough papers around the country that most issues got scrutinized. Now every month marks the closing of more newspapers--two newspaper cities become one newspaper cities and sadly, one newspapercities go dark. Without a creditable network of independent jounalists were all left to scratch out the truth and all of us are able to get at some truth. I'm just concerned that we don't get jogged out of our comfort zone frequently enough to rethink what's going on. So cheers to Jon Stewart for causing a ruckus for laugh.

[Carolab]

I believe the axiom is there is a grain of truth in every joke. That's why we appreciate people like Stewart. He points out the absurdities we all acknowledge in what passes for main stream media.

[Carolab]

Media dependent on their survival from advertising revenues are always reluctant to anger their advertisers. I used to work for a "city magazine". One of the advertisers (a bar) put up a sign in their bar saying "don't believe everything you read in *** magazine", after the publisher wrote an editorial about being a reformed alcoholic but then showed up there and ran a tab. The publisher refused to allow me to write up a flattering review of their bar, and then refused their advertising. It was petty of both of them. But the ironic thing is that the bar told the truth and I doubt it hurt their business at all, whereas the publisher lost not only his credibility but also that bar's advertising revenues. There is a lesson in there, somewhere. I believe the lesson is that everyone expects journalists to deliver facts and when they don't there are consequences. If advertisers stay silent and continue their support when journalists stretch the truth, even when it's in their favor, then they do all the rest of us a disservice. If instead they show some social responsibility, correct misstatements and strive to participate in honest reportage, they may be surprised to find that consumers will reward them with increased, not decreased, patronage -- or at the very least, some very good word-of-mouth.

[luke150]

Well, my little hope now is, that CNBC will, at least, stop pointing out how the "best and brightest" go to work on Wall Street.

[luke150]

Let me just point out that CNBC in its totality were pouring bad feelings on Obama since he proposed the stimulus. It was a never-ending tirade, commentators, guests, all totally biased, all like-minded and united by their animosity for the just-inaugurated president. All "supply-siders" (as if this is the only credible economic theory), all against the "class war" on the well-off as they will be asked to pay more taxes. It was amazing, it was worse than FOX News, because CNBC is supposed to be the channel that actually knows about economics and business. This negativity was really ugly and this is when I stopped turning to CNBC. If one wants to get good, popular business news, turn to Bloomberg Channel.
The heat they get now is actually refreshing - and the tirades have slowed down.

[petef59]

Really. The 'elder statesman' of CNBC Larry Kudlow is always,especially recently,making comments about 'being positive' regarding capitalism, the markets or whatever he loves about the US financial institutions. Yet, he never seems to muster the same positive upbeat attitude when it might be appplied to unions, minimum wage,worker rightws, governments social programs ,etc.

[mudshark12]

What is needed is a news agency that does investigative journalism and reports what they discover no matter who's dirty laundry is being exposed. Unfortunately American news agencies must kowtow to the people who are paying their salaries who in certain cases are the very people who would be exposed. So what we get is current events, accidents and disasters like hurricane Katrina & etc. with the occaisonal "feel good" story thrown in so we don't get completely depressed by all of the bad news. Jon Stewart may be a comedian but a person can find out more truth about what's really going on in a half an hour than can be found in listening to a weeks worth of the tripe that passes as "news" on other programs.

[Moabkid]

I feel so betrayed. All these years I believed what John Housman was saying. He came off as so truthful. Smith-Barney didn't make money the old-fashioned way. They didn't earn it.

[Querent]

I think it's become obvious that when a "News Organization" is owned by a corporation whose primary business is other than journalism, real journalism can take place in only a very attenuated way inside that organization. News companies should have only one business: news. Corporations should not be allowed to acquire news outlets and then turn them into their own private public relations organs. We need fundamental reform in order to have a society where some of the massive amounts of information we are deluged with is verifiable news. Without it, we are partially blind.

[Jsvb]

You don't have a problem with that?

Well I have a BIG problem with that. Tho they may BE little more than glorified mouthpieces for Wall Street, they put themselves forward as hard hitting financial journalists. And if their behavior since the interview is any indicator, they have no intention of changing their behavior.

They've been pretending to be something they aren't all along. And the country suffered for it.

Further, "look elsewhere"? Where, exactly, should people look? This isn't just MSNBC's problem. The rot extends thru all the news networks. These revelations were made ON A COMEDY SHOW, fer crissakes!

[thevealchop]

You're right. I worked as an editor at a magazine that dealt with the very same issues of loyalty to those who are "friends" (i.e., advertisers) of the magazine. I quit because of this reason. Our media system needs an honesty overhaul, and bad.

[Artos]

The media, much like our government goes where the money is and comes from. Because Corporations have the big bucks they wield an extraordinary amount of influence over both these establishments and by the by us as a direct result. Corporations are the Big Brother we were warned about in the George Orwell his novel.

[treetracker]

The problem is it is not JUST CNBC - it's all of them. Wall St owns the media and they own Congress. They hold the country hostage because they are in control of the money. That gives them extraordinary power. Just look at the amount of money the industry pours into lobbying. They can walk into Congress, the Fed, the SEC, etc. and TELL them what they want and they get it. Paulson did that when he wanted to increase the leverage ratio while he was at Goldman Sachs - and he got it. Instead of 12/1, it was increased to 35-40/1. THAT is the cause of this mess - it's not housing, it's how they were allowed to leverage. Repeal of Glass-Steagall allowed them to get too big so now these companies are 2/3 - 3/4 of our financial market. When the leverage rule changes were made, we were doomed.

This must change - we have to firewall their access.

[Pema]

To me the issue is how do they promote themselves? CNBC promnoted itself as a jouranlistic newsource. Cramer told people what to buy and worked to back up his claims, I dont think he nor any of the press that gets sloppy should get a free pass. There is a degree of professionalism that has been lost and we are the worse for it.
Cronkite where hast thou gone?