At this current moment somewhere between half and 3/4 of the stories posted on CNBC have the word Trump in it. Most have a negative connotation. Is news related to him really this sellable? Are they trying to push a political agenda? There is plenty of economic based news out there that pertains to their primary audience, why is he literally the only thing they are talking about?
Trending Content - Off Topic Forum
Career Resources
1) CNBC kind of sucks
2) All news right now is at least 3/4ths politics, including economic/financial, because so much of the world's economies hinge on what he's going to try and do as president.
3) CNBC has been pretty trump friendly. Most news about Trump has a negative connotation because he continues to do and say things that paint him in a negative light. So unless you're reading Breitbart, it's going to be mostly negative.
Read 1). Repeat until CNBC makes your knee jerk every time it's mentioned.
Can they just plagiarize the WSJ at this point. Plenty of stories with substance on there with no negative connotation.
Clients and LPs are extremely concerned about potential volatility under Trump. I know our investor relations team is getting hammered with requests about what our strategy is going forward because of Trump. It's not just CNBC, Bloomberg is the same way. Stupid to suggest this is a political agenda.
It wasn't a suggestion but a question. Also I am still learning, so when I see something that would appear to be the same as pushing a political agenda on a non-economic based site, I simply transfer the idea over. I appreciate the information though.
CNBC isn't covering Trump incessantly because he's market important. They are covering him non-stop because he gets ratings. It's that simple. If he didn't get ratings they would find other things to cover.
Makes sense, he's the go to topic here if you want a thread to succeed.
It's a political agenda. The correlation between what your client relations team is saying and what CNBC is saying is 0 except that one (CNBC) is driving the questions to the other.
so when CNBC spends the past four hours talking about Trump's CEO meeting and how pro-business he is and interviews CEOs that concur after leaving the meeting, is their political agenda to get him re-elected?
Agree totally. Their website is junk as well. Bloomberg is way better. I use finviz as well. The further erosion of main stream media.
I need to check Bloomberg out more. I honestly have never thought to use them as a breaking news source before. But everyone here seems to highlight it often.
Use them only for financial news. Al Jazeera and RT are much better for general news. BBC is solid for Africa and ME stuff.
RT is the WORST stuff you can actually read
I am on Bloomberg more frequently now. Also, I am personally getting tired of Melissa Lee.
Definitely don't think CNBC has a political agenda (it is on everyday at my office), if anything they've been favorable to Trump because tax cuts and deregulation are good for business and good for financial markets. Additionally, Trump is constantly giving CNBC reasons to cover him (meetings with CEOs, comments on pharma pricing and the dollar being too strong etc.).
You also have to remember that CNBC's Rick Santelli arguable started the entire Tea Party movement with his rant about needing a new tea party.
It's all Trump, all the time everywhere. I told my friend before the election, "Hey, at least when Clinton wins we'll never have to hear about Trump ever again. Just imagine if Trump were to win--all they'll do is talk about him for 4 years."
Well, here we have it. I literally deactivated my Facebook, abandoned Twitter, and have quit reading most of the news. Even the f*cking science and tech news sites can't help themselves from covering Trump! It's totally out of hand in a way that I've never witnessed before. This kind of overkill coverage (since August 2015!!!!) has probably never before been witnessed in American history (at least not since, I dunno, the Civil War).
And since virtually all mainstream media news coverage takes a negative view of Trump, I can't believe that he's been able to sustain even the level of popularity that he has sustained.
Bro, 100% agree. It is all consuming and everywhere. I love the newest tactic from the worthless propaganda creators.
Step 1: Anonymous source says trump fucks potatoes - Reuters Step 2: Trump fucks Idaho potatoes per a recent article from Reuters - Washington Post Step 3: Trump is is a vegetable pervert as reported in the Washington Post and other sources - CNN
So a "anonymous" bullshit report is now real news. It is basically money laundering.
It's been two weeks and we had protests during the inauguration, a woman's protest the day after, airport shut downs, and now endless media freak out. The left has been Freak Friday transported into an emotional high school teen.
And guess what? Nothing has changed. Trump's nominees keep getting through. He keeps doing what he is doing and life keeps going on.
Yeah, I mean, I get covering the President of the United States with a critical mind, but the kind of hyperventilation and hyperbole we've seen in story after story going back to August 2015 is just so out of hand. It's made the news un-watchable. The only guy I can listen to now is John Batchelor--he's the last adult in the room who can have people on to discuss policy matters without launching into hyperbole and personal attacks.
Anna Nicole Smith?
The CNBC tv coverage now is absurdly obsessed with Trump. It accounts for more than half their airtime. Bloomberg is better, but they are very global with coverage. Sometimes you want to watch a tv station in the background really focused on covering American markets and that just does not exist now. Sad
It's hilarious watching TNA and VT4EVR denigrate very middle of the road news publications over their negative coverage of what is clearly negative stories and then circle jerk each other over that "real news" of Russia's national news organization.
I swear, you can't make this stuff up.
News publications like NYT and CNN that have been caught openly working with CIA officials to "help them get their message out"(sic) are by definition not "middle of the road" but instead have fully embraced a role as propaganda arms of the government.
Kind of like RT.
Well, a lot of that is mainly because both parties have moved further to their more extreme sides, becoming exceptionally polarized. Anything that's actually mainstream or middle of the road is now rejected by both sides. A lot of this is courtesy of the 24 hour news cycle and the fact that cable news outlets are pressured to fill their airtime with 'something.' Too often that something isn't really much more than filler and is more and more just a rotating panel of people who are thrown on because they get riled up way too easily and just lather, rinse, repeat on the hour. It's much less news and more opinion driven. That's why foreign news networks like BBC are more appealing. It's less opinion and more actual journalism.
Are outlets like the BBC really more journalism? Or does it just appear that way because by the virtue of being foreign networks cover more of their local news and when they do cover things in America it is from the point of view of a spectator who is observing what is going on?
"Middle-of-the-road"? Do you follow any of these people on Twitter who work at the NY Times, Wash Post, CNN, et al? They aren't journalists; they're advocates/activists.
I'm at Gold's Gym last night and I look up and see the headline on CNN that is something to the effect of: "Is Trump's temperament dangerous?" Seriously? That's "middle-of-the-road"? That's called advocacy journalism.
CNN is politically middle of the road. That is a sensationalist headline but it's a pretty fair critique considering what's come out about his alienating foreign leaders on calls, his tweets, and "joking" about sending troops to Mexico. On top of him going against intelligence official to send in that recent military operation, which killed an american and over a dozen civilians, simply because he had something to prove, it's more than a fair critique.
When reality undoubtedly aligns with one side, it doesn't make a news organization bias to report that. It's only "advocacy journalism" because fact is separate from the narrative the administration, that has been undeniably incompetent up to this point, wants to portray.
It's basically just the difference between being a thoughtful consumer of a lot of news sources and wanting to alienating oneself in an echo chamber that backs set and pre decided "alternative facts".
If you think CNN, MSNBC, etc are middle of the road you aren't pay interest attention. Furthermore, mainstream media is an utter joke end uninformitive. If that's the trash you are watch I don't know what to say to you
If you think CNN, MSNBC, etc are middle of the road you aren't pay interest attention. Furthermore, mainstream media is an utter joke end uninformitive. If that's the trash you are watch I don't know what to say to you
Actually, gonna go against the grain here, of late the WSJ has frustrated me with their content. 3 examples: 1 covering facebook earnings - day before has a front page article on fruitless efforts to penetrate Chinese market. +1 day and FB revenue hits and very basic updates, no dive in to it really, and no reference to the China opp or however it's viewed (which btw was extremely long and covered like a field trip) 2 I really would like to avoid any political debate, but I am reading this article one day, and the descriptions used for a candidate and his photo painted an extreme, unresolving and unfair point of view on the subject with zero objective base in order to support that wording. I mean it was blatant. Like someone picks up the paper one day, new to everything, and thinks wow this guy must be bad, but I wonder why. Come back later that afternoon (I use online) and am shocked to see it revised. No amplification noted. 3 fluff pieces on subjects which are actually interesting and have robust depth beneath the surface, but that is absent and opinionated words are used to decide for the reader.
Sort of a rant, but really does anyone else think it's going through a rough time? Tbh, It must be a crazy time to be in the journalism world and WSJ has big shoes. Am I wrong in thinking it must be the GOAT on objectivity?
the answer is because you're all addicted to the drama. Why else would this thread, which is totally devoid of educational merit, be the hottest thing going right now?
In short, ratings...
Sed in distinctio consequatur voluptatibus. Ratione modi ratione sit quae dolor molestias quisquam aut. Magnam et suscipit quibusdam iure et. Adipisci voluptas officia nihil quasi aut et.
Autem qui possimus quo totam iure. Est cupiditate et eum quis itaque praesentium. Quae quisquam incidunt consequatur molestias ut error. Dignissimos velit dolor deleniti odit velit incidunt assumenda. Aperiam ratione voluptatem rerum laborum soluta. Ab aut eligendi beatae. Consequuntur fugit facilis sapiente magni.
Dolore eaque vero beatae quae accusamus veniam. Fugiat quo voluptatum ex dicta quibusdam provident. Voluptates voluptates deleniti ea facilis aut facilis sed.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Similique sit laboriosam animi quo repellendus quia quidem. Est nihil distinctio quisquam similique. Autem molestiae magnam ducimus illum sunt. Sunt accusantium alias laborum quidem. Accusantium vero aut ipsum aliquam enim. Omnis qui eos tempora sit id.
Voluptatibus qui qui sapiente dolorem aperiam dolores quia. Tenetur consequatur itaque sit assumenda veritatis eligendi doloribus vel. Eos quod est quos quaerat soluta sunt magni. Maxime dolorem iste rerum id est.
Sed repellendus voluptas tempora odit. Ea minus quis voluptatem est. Numquam laborum tempora est nulla rem vel in.
Corporis nihil officiis vero quis esse unde sed nulla. Odit voluptas et a qui ab voluptas. Et qui recusandae doloremque ullam placeat debitis sint.