Trump: $5 Million, Or No Debate!

Image from source, CNN

Was he joking? Just being (more of) an asshat? I guess we'll find out.

[Excerpt]

Trump Threatens CNN: Give Me $5 Million Or I Won’t Show Up for Next Debate!

Remember back in September how Donald Trump said that CNN shouldn’t accept any of the profits they made from the second GOP debate and should give it all to veterans charities? Well, he’s doing it again. . .

Read more at: CNN

Sen. Elizabeth Warren Schools CNBC Hosts

Image from source, Talking Points Memo

I love this woman. She's made of awesome, smart, calm, collected. . .and is a Democrat that can work with John McCain? This is presidential timber we're dealing with.

[Excerpt]

Ouch, Better CNBC Anchors Might Be Required
If you’re an Elizabeth Warren fan or really if you’re just into facts, you gotta watch this . . .

Source: Talking Points Memo

The Very Skittish DOW and the Vagueness of the Business Press

This is just a quick post to point out the futility of trying to understand the stock market. Yesterday, the DOW Jones Industrial Average was up over 140 points, after being down a bit on Wednesday, and closed on Monday and Tuesday due to Hurricane Sandy. On balance, the scales--as I write this--have barely changed since last Friday. As mercurial as the stock market is, that could change of course, but here is the quote that leads CNBC's reporting of the market at the moment:

"Stocks added to losses across the board Friday, as weakness in energy and materials trumped a better-than-expected monthly government jobs report and amid nervousness ahead of next week's presidential election."

Let's parse: "Stocks added to losses. . ." What? Stocks were up yesterday, so adding to what losses? ". . .as weakness in energy and materials trumped a better-than-expected monthly government jobs report. . ." This is really a bit of tea leaf reading here, isn't it? One was goodish and one was baddish, so the baddish one is why the market is down? ". . .and amid nervousness ahead of next week's presidential election." Hunh? Nervous about President Obama winning? Or losing? After all, the DOW has doubled since Obama's election, Mitt Romney's lauded business experience, notwithstanding. How in the world do they know that traders are nervous about the election?

Anyway, I just kind of find this sort of soothsaying kind of hilarious. This is a fairly mild example of the vagueness usually present in these blurbs. But, if stocks were to pare losses or even unexpectedly surge by the end of the day, they'll just revise all of the above to reflect what happened. No one will hold against them what they sussed out incorrectly, nobody will remember. Usually--on any given day when the market has fluctuated back and forth across the line--you can read these revised blurbs while the opposite reality is happening before your eyes. And tomorrow, they're still writing these "best guess" stories.

Writing for the business press must be the second most secure job after writing on the weather. You never have to guess correctly to keep your job!

Source: CNBC

Dow Soars, Day After Obamacare Ruling!

Image from Bloomberg.com

Hmmm. . .is that headline a little out of context? Is anything else going on today that would make the Dow go up? Yes, there's an EU decision. But you know what? It doesn't really matter. All economic diviners and prognosticators are guessing nearly all  the time.

On Thursday, after the SCOTUS decision on Obamacare, several economic indicators plunged precipitously. Right-wing World--rocked to its core by the decision to uphold the ACA--seized upon that fact, and put up charts and graphs showing the plunge. They were upset, dammit, but they could say, "See! I told you so!" Yeah, not so much. Forget that the Dow can go up or down in 200-point swings on any given day for any--or no--reason. Forget that on Thursday, it only ended up 20-some-odd points down. Forget that when it goes down during good news, business reporters will say it "dropped, despite" the good news. Forget that when something good happens and it goes up, they use imprecise language, like "stocks are up, amid news that. . ." It's all guess work, and they don't have to be right, like, ever.

So, however the twitchy Wall Street investors got after SCOTUS shook the world yesterday, they apparently got over it fast. Today--as I type this--we're up over 200 points, far exceeding yesterday's drop-off. And by the end of business, it could be over 200, under 100, or up 300. I don't know. You don't know. The CNBC and FOX "Business" channel don't know. But the last two will act like they do. Note the imprecise language below. They don't attribute the sharp stock rise to anything. It's "on the final trading day," "as a surprise agreement" happened, and it "overshadowed" the consumer sentiment report. All speculation.

[Excerpt]

Stocks Hold Sharp Gains on EU Deal; RIM Skids

Stocks held sharp gains across the board on the final trading day of the second quarter as a surprise agreement by EU leaders to help the region's struggling banks overshadowed a disappointing consumer sentiment report. . . .

Read more at: CNBC

FOX "Business" Warned Not to Emulate FOX "News"

Obviously, the order not to copy FOX "News" doesn't extend to the
"news babes." Image from CNBC

Here's a nugget of "common wisdom" I'd love to see consigned to the dustbin of history: the media is liberally biased. In what freakin' universe? Nearly all of the mainstream media is owned by massive multi-national conglomerates. Nearly all of those entities would be considered fiscally conservative. Even MSNBC--the whipping boy of cable news, to most conservatives--has a three-hour morning show every weekday, hosted by a Republican former-Congressman, Joe Scarborough. Even in their admittedly liberal-skewing evening programs (The ED Show, The Rachel Maddow Show, and The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell, they regularly have conservative guests like Michael Steele and others. You'd never see that on FOX "News."


For another example, here in Las Vegas, which went blue in 2008, and regularly goes blue in Clark County, there has never been a truly liberal radio station. But there are at least three conservative ones, some on both AM and FM simultaneously.  When you can only name those above along with Bill Maher and Jon Stewart as progressive voices, how can you seriously say it is a liberal media? And yet FOX "News" pretends to be "fair and balanced." And their sister network, FOX "Business" has mostly been a little-watched clone. But the bigwigs are not digging that fact, and they're laying down the law.


[Excerpt]


Memo to Fox Business staff: don`t copy Fox News

Here's a novel idea: Fox Business Network should focus on covering business news.
At least that's what Kevin Magee, executive vice president of the News Corp-owned <NWSA.O> cable news network, is urging his staff to do. . .

Read more at:  CNBC

If You're Wrong All the Time, Get a Job at FOX "News"

There was a common joke about FOX "News" contributor William Kristol a few years ago: "Is he ever right?"  It's something that would apply to a whole roster of Republican pundits and politicians, and the funny thing is. . .they all seem to appear regularly on FOX.  We already know that all the financial experts regularly appearing on CNBC or FOX "Business" were wrong, wrong, wrong all the danged time before the recession hit, and they all still get to keep prognosticating (I'm talking to you, Jim Cramer).  But if your bailiwick is news and politics commentary, the place for you to go--even after having been wrong repeatedly--is clearly FOX "News."

[Excerpt]


Media turn to discredited Bush officials to respond to Obama's Iraq speech





Following President Obama's speech on the end of combat operations in Iraq, media outlets hosted discredited Bush administration officials Karl Rove, Stephen Hadley, and Ari Fleischer to respond, despite the fact that the three were at the forefront of the campaign of misinformation used to sell the war. . .

Read more at: Media Matters

Captain Obvious: Nobody Understands the Stock Market

I began dabbling in the stock market last year. Just small stuff, getting my feet wet, trying to figure it all out.  In all last year--since I never sold a stock that was down, and only sold four total--I managed to make $600+ profit.  This year, I've lost, lost, lost.  I haven't sold anything yet, so nothing's really gone per se, but just like our house, I'm sorta under water.

Through it all, I'd watch the Dow Jones Industrial Average go by on my on-screen ticker. On days where the market was up, I was down. On days when it went down, so did I. It usually goes like that. But some days, the market fluctuates wildly.  Up 158 points! Down 60! Up 50! Down 226!  The market can be up, up, up all day, and crash at the end, or vice-versa.  If you want to check on why this is all happening, you can go to CNBC.com, and there will be a handy headline: "Stocks wobbly on fears of Chinese imports." This while the market is climbing like a rocket. Then, when it suddenly tumbles three digits, you go back to CNBC, and the headline: "Stocks soar on consumer optimism!"  At the closing bell, the DJI manages to claw back to positive, and CNBC says: "Market plunges at close, investors panic!"  It's like that a lot.

After a while, I started to wonder, "don't those headlines seem an awful lot like guessing?"  Yes, yes they do.  After a little over a year of this, I've come to believe that investment analysts are no better than carnival soothsayers.  They never have to be right, and yet they get to keep their jobs. Nice work if you can get it.

Image from RawStory

[Excerpt]

MSNBC’s Ratigan: Stock market an ‘obviously corrupt’ fraud


On his afternoon show Tuesday, MSNBC host Dylan Ratigan explained why he believes the usual explanations given in the media for why the stock market went up or down on a given day are nonsense.


"Seventy percent of the volume [of trades on the stock market] is computers that are run by the banks playing ping pong with stocks for 10 seconds at at time," Ratigan said.


"The stock market at this point, which used to be a reflection of the future value of actual businesses in this country, has been turned by our government and our banks into little more than a paper shredding facility [about which] we can make up reasons why it goes up and down," Ratigan said. "But when the computers ... at the banks are controlling the action, most everything else is kind of silly. . ."

Read more at: Raw Story

Daily Show Cramer Smackdown Scores Ratings

Image from source, MSNBC

You might notice I haven't posted much in the last two days. Sorry about that. Sometimes "blogger burnout" sets in. Maybe with a bit of a restful weekend, I'll get a little recharge.

Anyway, before the big Daily Show with Jon Stewart smackdown of CNBC's Mad Money host, Jim Cramer is just a memory, here's one more post on the subject.

[Excerpt]

'The Daily Show': Jon Stewart-Jim Cramer showdown nets big ratings

Thursday night's anticipated appearance by CNBC financial guru Jim Cramer on Comedy Central's The Daily Show With Jon Stewart netted big ratings, the cable network announced on Friday. The program drew a crowd of some 2.3 million viewers, making it the year's second-most-watched Daily Show installment, after the episode that aired on Inauguration Day (which garnered 2.6 million pairs of eyeballs). Overall, it was among the top 10 shows in the 12 1/2-year history of the fake news program.

Source: Entertainment Weekly

Maddow on Cramer & Stewart

Quite a bit of bandwidth was taken up today, saying that MSNBC hosts had been advised to steer clear of the big Jon Stewart vs. Jim Cramer interview from yesterday. Either it wasn't true, or Rachel Maddow ignored the advice. And good for her either way. This was a fairly big story, a devastating take-down by Stewart of the whole cable business news game. CNBC may be related to MSNBC, but they shouldn't be immune to news stories about themselves.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Jon Stewart's Interview with CNBC's Jim Cramer

The interview, from Comedy Central's The Daily Show was pretty interesting, with Jon Stewart landing solid punches against Jim Cramer (host of Mad Money), CNBC, and televised business news in general. Cramer came off nervous, defensive, and well. . .just poorly, in my opinion. I wonder if Cramer will get to keep his show.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Jim Cramer Pt. 1

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things w/ Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Jim Cramer

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Jim Cramer Pt. 2

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things w/ Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Jim Cramer

Jon Stewart's Takedown of CNBC's Jim Cramer

Jon Stewart single-handedly took down CNN's Crossfire, and now he may do the same for CNBC, or at least its star, Jim Cramer. This is great stuff.

Jon Stewart & David Letterman on the Economy

Good stuff, with more of Jon Stewart's take on CNBC and the financial "experts."

Jon Stewart Takes on CNBC

Funny as it is, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart sometimes serves the public interest. When they do segments with collages clips from politicians, pundits and the like, they serve up a slice of the past. News, political and financial shows are seldom rerun, and only the most egregious slip-ups usually get replayed. But when Stewart airs these kinds of stories, he assembles the many, many times the subjects are wrong, with dates included.

So, you'll see for yourself when somebody like John Boner Boehner says one thing when there is a Republican President, and then the opposite when a Democrat is in office. In this case, it isn't politics, it's financial news. And Stewart shows that the "financial experts" don't know any more what they're talking about than most politicians and pundits. And yet they get to keep their jobs.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

CNBC Gives Financial Advice

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things With Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Joke of the Day

Erin Burnett: Bring on the Lead Paint & Poison!

OK, I'm going to give this CNBC reporter the benefit of the doubt, and assume that she just worded this badly. She may have been merely trying to express a thought on live TV that came out sounding bonkers. Surely she doesn't think we should continue to use and consume toxic products from China. Then again, she just may be bonkers.