From New York Times, via www.drudgereport.com : CNBC Disclosure Stirs Ethics Debate in Business Media By PATRICK McGEEHAN Maria Bartiromo, the stock-market reporter and anchorwoman for CNBC, opened her hourlong television interview earlier this month with Sanford I. Weill, the chief executive of Citigroup, with an unusual disclosure. She told viewers that she owned 1,000 shares of Citigroup stock, then worth about $45,000. Neither Ms. Bartiromo nor her supervisors thought her stake in Citigroup should disqualify her from questioning Mr. Weill about the company's future and his decision to step down as chief executive at year-end. Amy Zelvin, a spokeswoman for CNBC, said Ms. Bartiromo had abided by the network's policies, which Ms. Zelvin said were intended to ensure "compliance with the highest ethical standards." Ms. Bartiromo's revelation highlighted an issue that has divided financial journalism. Many business news organizations â including The Wall Street Journal, BusinessWeek and Forbes â say that they forbid reporters from covering companies in which they have investments. CNN, one of CNBC's cable-news competitors, says it tries to avoid such conflicts. Sarah Cohn, a spokeswoman for CNN in New York, read a prepared statement that said: "We take active measures to avoid putting our staff in the position of reporting on companies in which they have a meaningful stake. Therefore, it would be highly unusual for any on-air disclosure to be necessary." ... . ***** Talk about much ado about nothing. I have my share of criticisms of CNBC adn Maria, but to try to make a big deal out of this is nonsense, at least to me. She was asking a few questions, not doing an investigative report. It shows how upside down the media is. They get all excited about a nonissue like this, but treat far more serious political bias, such as shown by Tim Russert yesterday, as business as usual.
It follows my theory that the bigger power picks on the lesser power. In that you can see the pecking order. Underlying all that, it has to do with money and power: who can pick who's pocket and keep everyone under that in tow. In this case, Maria is the lesser power, while whoever or whatever you're referencing on Tim Russet represents a bigger power.
Well, lets face it, if the NYT can't plagerize anymore, this is their best attempt at orginal content. Laughable. Its sad to see such an institution such as the NYT attempt to defer their tarred reputation onto other competitors.
I think if she had 10k shares it might be different, but it;s not like she's a licensed rep or director....I think it's cool that she discloses the relationship if for no other reason then to give the appearance of ethics....but for 1000 shares???? who cares.
Who cares ? Non-Issue. If you are listening or depending upon outlets Like CNN or their reporters, i.e. "personalities", for reliable information then you are in the wrong game. All of this stuff is the same: bellywash and propaganda ... and if you are relying on it for trading then you need to re-examine your operating procedures .....
I do too but within reason...For instance, when they are talking about GE ( parent company) or it's competitors i like the disclaimer...but 1000 shares of citi??? I think the bigger issue is why this airhead is writing a book!
she's a moron who calls 'shorting' when the market is bottoming, and writes a book that wastes lots of paper (and the time of anyone who reads it). but it's not like it's a small cap stock, or she's got some privy information...it's C. it's after hours. maybe if they said something like "you can't have more than 10000 shares or something of a company you interview...? but 1000? no foul here on maria. check the post's article on lancer, by chris byron, in today's issue, on her brother in law.
while covering news on McDonalds,ted david disclosed that he owned 100 shares - pretty funny. what a piker.