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. except when there's meaninful:

    • economic data being released
    • exclusive reporting on current financial issues
    • significant and random interviews with important business people
    • Rick Santelli from the CME / CBOT futures pit
    • fixed location index quotes on a rotating basis (on the screen)
    • their growing ETF coverage presentations

    so, what's to hate about CNBC?, let me count some of the ways:

    • the announcer shouting from the floor, when they're reporting from the NYSE, the pits or other high volume areas, as if the microphones don't pick up their voices
    • that overly political, biased, rosey-eyed crudlow; completely worthless
    • their heavily biased republican politicized viewpoint that completely overshadows their reporting efforts. aren't newscasts supposed to be unbiased?
    • way too many local and regional commercials coming over the cable channel, as if they don't already earn enough in fees
    • the list is too long with wha't wrong with them
     
    #11     Apr 3, 2008
  2. Ok who are the clowns that voted cnbc is good or excellent. Are they watching the same channel. Cnbc sucks. Putting lipstick, fancy clothes on a pig i mean maria and paying her millions doesnt make her a diva shes still a pig
     
    #12     Apr 3, 2008
  3. All my profit were made during the time I shut off these "news" channels.
     
    #13     Apr 3, 2008
  4. Agreed.

    At least I can listen to Bloomberg and have it on during the day. It's mature, subdued, and often has some very (truly) knowledgeable guest interviews.

    Plus, Bloomberg gives a lot more 'raw' data. That's constructive.

    CNBC is an absolute joke and disgrace...flashy graphics, loud noises, circus like caricatures spouting off.

    I mean, c'mon? Fast Money? 'The Wolf', 'The Admiral', 'The Risk Doctor?'

    pffft.


    And then there's that Jim Cramer fellow.


    Okay. I need not go on any further.


    CNBC blurs the line between an alleged financial news channel and Nickelodeon. Pop a red clown nose on Cramer and any distinction completely fades.....




    [​IMG]
     
    #14     Apr 3, 2008
  5. CNBC is only good for the "Money Honeys"

    Erin Burnett and Becky Quick!!

    Ohh cant forget the clown shows.

    Jim Cramer Mad Money
    Kudlow and Company
    Fast Money, for the stuttering Ratigan and that scum rumor spreading Gasperino whenever he is featured.
     
    #15     Apr 3, 2008
  6. rickf

    rickf

    More CNBC crap...I'm on travel and my hotel room only has CNBC not Bloomberg.

    Watching the Senate Banking hearings, and not only do they pull away DURING testimony/q-and-a so the studio folks can provide 'context' that is mostly worthless, but their market update thing they run every 10 minutes throws in a gazillion World-of-Warcraft sound effects (realtime screeches to show tick changes, magical sprinkle sounds as they flip graphs, etc) that is VERY EFFING DISTRACTING when listening to what's being said.

    Totally not a channel to be useful. Flashy and glitzy to the uninformed sheeple, perhaps.
     
    #16     Apr 3, 2008
  7. You rule!!!!!!!!!!

    After seeing Michelle, the lead anchor, I just became a member! YUMMY!!!!!!!!

    CNBC chicks do this, and I'll turn off Bloomberg!:D
     
    #18     Apr 3, 2008
  8. #19     Apr 3, 2008
  9. #20     Apr 3, 2008