So I Googled up "Charley" or "Charlize" or something like that, and somehow stumbled on this, a site for and English Big Brother that ran last spring. Apparently there's someone named Charley (#3) in the house, and her description refers to her as "an unemployed lap dancer".
Can you be an unemployed lap dancer?
Anyway, a little Point/Counter Point over on Real Money today. The subject? The 3:30 Gasparino Reports. One one side, we have Doug Kass.
Those contributors on RealMoolah (and the emailers) who have suggested that Charlie Gasparino is a pawn for the bulls and that his 3:30 p.m. reports on the monoline insurers are (plunge protection team) conspiracies are totally wrong.
Embarrassingly wrong.
Stated simply, Charlie is the most straight-up guy of any media type I know (maybe he is tied with Herbela Greenberg for first place!).
His reports (and his recent book) are totally unbiased and well researched -- and quite frankly, often attack the establishment for its wrongdoings (something very few do!).
Does anyone accuse Charlie of bias? I mean it's pretty clear he has stories on both sides. 3:30 was Scare Time not all that long ago.
On the other side, we'll use the Rev Shark.
I disagree with Doug Kass as to Charlie Gasparino on CNBC. Although I'm sure he is not purposely manipulating the market, it should be painfully obviously that the constant reporting of rumors that prove to be incorrect has an impact on the market.
I question how responsible it is for a journalist to release "breaking news" 30 minutes before the market is going to close on a Friday, when all he has to report is that a deal "might" be done.
The focus of this sort of reporting isn't to inform but to sensationalize and to receive attention. What is even worse is that CNBC then uses the fact that it moved the market to promote its coverage, although the story didn't even play out. CNBC deserves scorn, not defense, for that sort of thing.
Totally agree as it pertains to CNBC. I mean they are literally running promos bragging about how they moved the markets last Friday. The story itself? As Judge Smails would say, "well, we're waiting......".
The responsibility of the journalist is more limited here imho. He gets a story to a certain point and then CNBC has to decide whether there is enough there, there, to run. Much less run it as "stop everything, this is cosmic news". Much less then brag about breaking *news*, that STILL HASN'T ACTUALLY HAPPENED, a full week later.
Much less the fact that even if true, it's not the most significant story in the history of mankind.
4 comments:
"unemployed lap dancer" - makes it's own gravy, just too funny.
CNBC knows it is manipulating the market. Gotta keep the "sunshine all the time" market going. Didn't it come out about 10 minutes after the market closed that Gasparino's rumor was unfounded? Kinda like Bernanke saving the market on expiration day. The trader population cannot possibly be so naive to think there is nothing to these actions.
rofl, yes. Isn't that like firing yourself?
Bernanke yes on that expiration, that was pretty blatant. CNBC I think is more allowing (encouraging?) themselves to be a conduit for manipulation. They never put anything in the context of someone just talking their book, it's always *news*.
I mean I'm sure they know they're effectively moving markets around, but I don't think that's their motiviation, they're almost like the useful idiot in that respect.
I remember a time not that long ago when we were able to trade all day and not be affected by the nonsense that spewed out of the "idiot box".
you had a stash then and i had no facial hair I think. In other words, a lifetime ago.
Post a Comment