Also, Howard Kurtz of The Washington Post reviews the recent CNBC criticism, most of which I had posted here, but he adds his own thoughts, which in a rare switch, I agree with.
I have a lot of respect for CNBC’s top journalists. And you could deliver a similar indictment of financial journalists overall — that with some exceptions, they operated on the assumption that the giant banks and mega-corporations were on sound footing and whatever risks they faced were manageable. The most egregious failure, in my view, was failing to fully report on the drastic cutbacks in federal regulation — the SEC’s shift to virtual voluntarism and the rise of a shadow banking system that sliced and diced and swapped paper beyond the reach of the authorities.
Too many of CNBC’s guests are fund managers with an interest in talking up stocks and analysts whose investment houses do business with corporate America.
Well, I’ll go this far with Kurtz. I will assume that, given their backgrounds and education, that many CNBC journalists could be “top,” for which they should have our respect. And not all of them inject their opinions. And some, most notably Dylan Rattigan and Steve Liesman, occasionally inject a progressive opinion, which I like, but is no more defensible.
Perhaps, it’s the leaders of CNBC who should first be faulted for telling the anchors to inject their opinions. But until they track back to being good, objective, investigative journalists, I’m withholding my respect.