CDZ Why is CNBC Definitely right of the rest of the NBC Channels?

[william the wie]

The simple reason is that if CNBC as a business channel carries water for the Ds (or Rs) at the expense of actionable market intelligence it is gone. Likewise for Fox Business v. Fox News. Partisan politics is of interest to the higher net worth viewers only in so far as it affects returns. Objectivity also affects whether the reporters and producers get recruited by the higher pay terminal companies who get most of their revenue from terminal rentals, not ads. Bad mouthing even large ad accounts is permitted because it sells terminals. So, why aren't most links on this board from Reuters or Bloomberg?

 

[usmbguest5318]

Why is CNBC Definitely right of the rest of the NBC Channels?

Because economics and finance are not, to people who understand them well, political topics. People who understand both disciplines take the approach of:

1. I'll do my best to advocate for "B" because that would benefit my firm more so than the other alternatives.
2. Regardless of which among "A," "B" or "C" be implemented, I'm going to optimize my undertakings so I maximize my revenue given the constraints imposed and opportunities made available by the implemented policy.

Once a policy/law/regulation is in place, it doesn't matter what one thought about it. What matters is how one responds to it. If one's focus is on the profit motive, one will respond as noted above in the second ordered list item. If one instead focuses on the policy and not how to prevail/thrive under it, one'll "bitch and moan."

 

[william the wie]

I do wish the use of propaganda organs like CNN were not the most common source of links.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I do wish the use of propaganda organs like CNN were not the most common source of links.

Really? I suspect I can count on one hand the number of readers here who've read the reference/supporting content to which I most typically link. Hell, quite often folks don't even click on the link, much less read the content found there. That said, I will continue to link to such content because when "sharing [one's] analysis, providing citations that point readers to [one's] underlying research will help convince them that [one has] thought seriously about the matter under discussion." Obviously, the more rigorous the research content founding one's position, the better.

 

[william the wie]

That depends on the primary source. The most infamous case is the lie that Aristotle did not poison Alexander. All of the primary sources mention the means, motive, method and opportunity that apply and then say Aristotle would never do such a thing, which is treated as gospel.

 

[Toronado3800]

That depends on the primary source. The most infamous case is the lie that Aristotle did not poison Alexander. All of the primary sources mention the means, motive, method and opportunity that apply and then say Aristotle would never do such a thing, which is treated as gospel.

It is different to be wrong vs slanted. If folks see it in Fox or CNN it is probably a sign of their leanings.

However just because a news reporter working for a multi national corporation comes out giving favorable coverage to wealth redistribution doesn't mean that reporter is wrong, just a bit brave.

Also consider if some news network ridiculed Vietnam or pointed out some misdeeds there it doesn't mean they were slanted hippies against the establishment.

 

[jwoodie]

However just because a news reporter working for a multi national corporation comes out giving favorable coverage to wealth redistribution doesn't mean that reporter is wrong, just a bit brave.

A "news reporter" shouldn't be giving favorable/slanted coverage to anything he is reporting.

 

[jwoodie]

Partisan politics is of interest to the higher net worth viewers only in so far as it affects returns.

That is not entirely true, but they do tend to have a lower tolerance for BS.

 

[william the wie]

Partisan politics is of interest to the higher net worth viewers only in so far as it affects returns.

That is not entirely true, but they do tend to have a lower tolerance for BS.

partial agreement you are right about relatively small differences but companies were announcing bonuses, projected employment and similar economic good news during the vote according to FBN. Bloomberg.com has like 30 columnists writing every day I did a sample of three columnists I don't normally read.

My conclusion was that the columnist who flat out stated that in the future FL and TX will replace NY and CA relatively shortly because they have no income tax was the consensus opinion.