Bloomberg Vs. CNBC, Cast your Vote

Discussion in 'Wall St. News' started by TradStSOX, Apr 3, 2008.

Which Cahnnel provides better financial content?

  1. Bloomberg, Poor

    1 vote(s)
    0.8%
  2. Bloomberg, Fair

    8 vote(s)
    6.1%
  3. Bloomberg, Good

    36 vote(s)
    27.3%
  4. Bloomberg, Excellent

    39 vote(s)
    29.5%
  5. CNBC, Poor

    14 vote(s)
    10.6%
  6. CNBC, Fair

    7 vote(s)
    5.3%
  7. CNBC, Good

    16 vote(s)
    12.1%
  8. CNBC, Excellent

    11 vote(s)
    8.3%
  1. Let these Channels know who is doing a good job and who is just playing showmanship...with no good content.

    p.s.
    with just one choice, you mark the one which matters most to you...
     
  2. Bloomberg is like a 24 hours real Finanacial program .

    But CNBC is like 12 hours clouwn show, and other 12 hours clouwn show .
     
  3. In my country the CNBC satellite don`t work for 2/3 days and my cabletv replace it with Bloomberg tv ...

    Wow i was super happy .... an then ..... CNBC IS BACK AGAIN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I call my Cabletv and tell if is possible have Bloomberg again ....

    CableTV: The major people preferred CNBC because is very funny / Bloomberg is static ...............................
     
  4. More cleavage please.
     
  5. Joab

    Joab

    You should have called this thread:

    Number of Amateurs on ET.

    CNBC great for chicks but clueless and slow to report what matters most.
     
  6. Who really gives a shit? Just trade what's on your screen.
     
  7. What country are you in, Arkansas?
     
  8. rickf

    rickf

    Bloomberg = excellent. No hype, sensational graphics/sound effects, cheerleading, and nearly everyone is OBJECTIVE in their analyses. Plus there's no shouting matches or talk-overs like CNBC is doing these days with their 'Task Farces' .... aside from Rick Santelli, most of CNBC-US is a joke. Though I am fairly pleased with CNBC-International, which does seem much less sensational and more 'professional' (ie Bloomberg-ish) in terms of its tone, presentation, and toned-down glitzyness. But I guess American viewers need the fluff. :(

    There was an article in (I think) Money last week about how CNBC's new producer purposely is making the network more 'combatitive' on-air in an effort to gain ratings and viewers. Reading that made it crystal clear that CNBC is not aa TV network offering business news but rather investotainment.

    Bloomberg is NEWS and ANALYSIS. And the fact Bloomberg is 24-hours ALL THE TIME compared to CNBC who ignores Asia and Europe markets after 8PM alone shows the difference -- what's more important for the investor/trader? A rerun of Deal or No Deal or the action in Asia?

    It's like comparing PBS Newshour with CNN/MSNBC/FNC. Apples and oranges.

    Fox Business is a total joke as well. Aside from the fluffy biz content they provide, they're also heavy into politics -- go figure. :)

    That said, I am happy that Fox Biz came around last year --- because of their arrival, I was able to get a full Bloomberg feed on Comcast after years of begging. I rarely watch CNBC anymore.
     
  9. They could care less about the content these days because ratings = ad $. They wish they could get more Cramer like personalities on air.
     
  10. Bloomberg is better. I learned something important from a movie called "Broadcast News." The line basically says that newscasters/reporters should just report the news; nobody cares what the newscaster thinks. I agree with this statement. Everyone on CNBC is a commentator and a color analyst. There are enough experts in the field (economists, money managers, etc) to provide color commentary and analysis. Just because one has have been reporting forever just doesn't make one an analyst. Some members of the CNBC cast have traded or are economists--so I would allow them some leeway. Rick Santelli is probably the most qualified analyst, as far as trading is concerned, for he did work the pits prior to becoming a part of the CNBC cast. Kudlow, Cramer, Fast Money Group are qualified to offer commentary. Just because they are qualified doesn't mean they are always right. I look at what they say as "food for thought," not gospel. Bloomberg is more objective; but it is "colder", and maybe that appeals to a larger audience.

    The other thing is the "entertainment and ratings." Obviously, the networks are garnering attractive women as financial journalists. That's fine, but if they are not qualified to offer commentary, then they should'nt offer any. Again, nobody cares what the reporter thinks. Lastly, another line from the movie: A reporter should not be making the news either.
     
    #10     Apr 3, 2008