If CNBC Gives You A Headache...

Discussion in 'Wall St. News' started by ByLoSellHi, Apr 9, 2007.

  1. ..with the blaring music, annoying talking heads, and blinding graphics...

    ...turn on Bloomberg TV if have it.

    Wow. What a difference. I can actually leave the volume on (softly) while I'm in my office.

    It's so much more professional and tasteful than CNBC. They even give you quotes of things commodity traders make money in...like silver, nickel, copper, sugar, cocoa, coffee, cotton, orange juice, soybean futures, etc., and they stream quotes for all international indexes.

    Night and day. Puts CNBC to shame.
  2. CNBC could care less about you. All they care for are ratings and ad $.
  3. jtnet


    you can find bloomberg on line free streaming. 4tv . com
  4. Joseph Farah, editor-in-chief of WorldNetDaily, described the problem as follows:

    " There's an indelicate old newspaper saying that summarizes succinctly the way the industry traditionally viewed the issue of personal and journalistic conflicts of interest. The curmudgeonly city editor would say to his reporter: "Hey, I don't care if you sleep with elephants, just don't cover the circus."

    . . .

    That was the American journalistic standard for a long time -- right up until the 1970s. Today, I'm sorry to say, the circus is being covered by people sleeping in the elephant tent, the hyena cage, the sheep exhibit and the gerbil display. We have witnessed in the last quarter decade the transition of American journalism from a profession of disinterested chroniclers to one more akin to a band of lobbyists using the press to support activist causes "

    Is it really surprising ?Who owns CNBC, who pays for the advertising that pays the people who work for CNBC, what is their agenda?

    "But actually, he thought as he re-adjusted the Ministry of Plenty's figures, it was not even forgery. It was merely substitution of one piece of nonsense for another. Most of the material that you were dealing with had no connection that is contained in a direct lie. Statistics were just as much a fantasy in their original version as in the rectified version. A great deal of time you were expected to make them up out of your head. For example, the Ministry of Plenty's forecast had estimated the output of boots for the quarter at a hundred and forty-five million pairs. The actual output was given as sixty-two millions. Winston however, in re-writing the forecast, marked the figure down to fifty-seven millions, so as to allow the usual claim that the quota had been over-fulfilled. In any case, sixty-two millions was no more the truth than fifty-seven millions, or than a hundred and forty-five millions. Very likely no boots had been produced at all. Likelier still, nobody knew how many boots had been produced, much less cared. All one knew was that every quarter astronomical numbers of boots were produced on paper while perhaps half the population of Oceania went barefoot. And so it was with every class of recorded fact, great or small. Everything faded away into a shadow-world in which, finally, even the date of the year had become uncertain."
  5. MattF


    duhhh...it's part of NBC as is.

    What does NBC stand for?


  6. That stupid DJIA bug is back in town. :D