Some Symptoms Of the Decline Of Our National Discourse

TW: Barry Ritholz seems like a fairly level-headed and a financial commentator who keeps his politics largely separate from his investment insight. His description of what happens with CNBC seems to me symbolic of what happens with most TV outlets. Things are getting less informative not more.

From the Big Picture:
"I had lunch the other day with several other analysts, strategists, money managers and economists, all of whom shall remain nameless. All make frequent media appearances. The conversation drifted over to CNBC. The consensus is everyone at the table wants to do less of it.

The reasons given:
-Producers try to tailor the discussion (“Be more Bullish/Bearish”);
-Too time consuming;
-Law of diminishing returns — the benefits are less and less each appearance;
-Nuance has become a dirty word (“Pick a Letter to describe the economy”);
-Last minute cancellations when “better” names become available;
-Dumbing down of the discourse (One person called it “Foxification”)

I then mention that while I still do a ton of media, I have become Persona Non Grata at CNBC.

There was an issue with some really obnoxious blog comments (they were deleted); I started asking not to be booked with really dumb guests (I also requested no Octobox). I did do Fox a few times (But really, who cares about that? I do all media outlets on behalf of my firm).

With Dylan gone, I dont hear from Fast Money, and with Kudlow, I was told I was “too nuanced“– a phrase that is hardly ever used to describe me..."
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/02/persona-non-grata-at-cnbc/

Bartlett v. Kudlow

TW: This conversation ultimately goes nowhere, it is CNBC after all. But it accomplishes much. We see a moderate Republican, Bartlett, seek to have a real conversation on fiscal policy; whilst being interviewed by an ideologue, Kudlow, who regardless of Bartlett's answers spouts cliches, tired slogans and punchlines. Overlying this is the 2nd interviewer, Trish Regan, who mostly appears clueless but occasionally interjects the standard slanted BS (i.e. "obamanomics caused the housing bubble", Reagan was a god) of those of her generation who drank supply side kool-aid through the 80's and 90's rather than studied.

Bartlett's point is that neither Reaganesque/Laffernomics, Keynes or anyone else has a monopoly on good policy, one must adjust one's policies to the realities of the situation. Unlike Kudlow whose answer to all challenges is "tax cut (preferably for the wealthy and corporations)", all the while while alleging that he Kudlow is stating "universal truths".

I also link a Krugman response to the Barro tangent Kudlow threw out. Kudlow also mentioned the quack Amity Schlaes. Bartlett's reponse- "she is wrong" sums up her value.

From Paul Krugman at NYT:
"...Barro makes a great deal of the fact that private spending fell during World War II, rather than rising the way it should in a classical Keynesian (oxymoron?) story.

What I and others immediately pointed out was that this tells us very little about what would happen under current conditions: during World War II there, um, was a war on: consumption goods were rationed, construction required special permits, and so on. The government was, in other words, deliberately suppressing private spending, through direct controls. So WWII is not a useful data point for determining what the multiplier is under other conditions.

Barro’s response to this, as far as I can tell, was … nothing. I don’t think he even acknowledged the nature of the complaint..."

How Soon We Forget (cont.)

TW: This is the stuff that drives me batshit crazy. One, you have CNBC presenting only one side of an argument led by a Larry Kudlow/Arthur Laffer acolyte, Dennis Kneale, and his panelists. Two, they are headed down the path of Regulation=BAD, Wall Street And Unfettered Capitalism=Good. The world is just not that simple. As evidenced by our freaking economy just about imploding last fall (and it is still very stressed), yet the same acolytes who got us there are back to beating their same old tired drums of Regulation=BAD, Wall Street And Unfettered Capitalism=Good.

Wall Street can be good and it can be bad like the rest of us hence the need for nuance.

The Chamber of Commerce is about one thing, monied interests. It is the ultimate conservative (small c) entity. They oppose any and all regulation and government intervention until of course they need their asses pulled out of the fire like last fall. There is nothing wrong with folks like the Chamber pursuing their own interests but to hear a panelist describe them as "in the trenches doing real business" as if no one else does "real business" makes me want to puke. They are spending $100MM to make sure no reform takes place and no measures are taken to reduce the chances of another "Great Collapse of 2008" occurs. Your grandchildren will be reading about 2008 as a seminal economic event but these folks want to turn the page as if nothing happened.

From Economist:
"...This comment, though, from a CNBC panel on the Chamber of Commerce's new "pro-capitalism" ad campaign, is of the sillier New Deal revisionism.

'We've seen this movie before. During the Great Depression, FDR put in place the New Deal, and while it did a lot of good, there were massive tax hikes, there was onerous regulation and it killed the animal spirits of the economy.'

This is foolish on several levels. "Animal spirits" was, of course, the phrase John Keynes coined to describe why consumers put aside doubts "as a healthy man puts aside the expectation of death". You can say a lot about the White House's plans, but you can't say it's tamping down confidence or rejecting Keynsianism. And if the spirits were "killed", why hasn't America spent the ensuing 75 years wracked by depression? This gets at why the Chamber's prospective $100m campaign doesn't make much sense. Who's in the mood right now for rote defenses of capitalism and rote attacks on the New Deal?

The CNBC host wraps this segment by grumbling that "it's almost an oxymoron: regulation and smart", which explains why he buys his meat from the black market instead of in grocery stores. "

CNBC Loses One Of Its Calmer Less Strident Voices

TW: I have watched too much CNBC over the years. Many perhaps a majority of its journalists do not impress me. They are either conduits for corporate propaganda (e.g. Bartiromo etc.), right-wing flacks like Kudlow and Dennis Neale or empty suits. Dylan Ratigan tended to be less bombastic and level-headed about the whole thing. Unfortunately he is leaving. Why? who knows given the out-sized egos of these folks. One rumor had it that he wanted to the pursue the line of thought he outlined on a show last October, "how did we get in this mess?"

It Won't Stop...

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

Basic Cable Personality Clash Skirmish '09

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things With Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Economic Crisis

TW: Entertainers love nothing better than a controversy to boost their mutual ratings. But then that is the point, they are entertainers, they both acknowledge it in their own ways. Cramer is set to appear on the Stewart show Thursday night to continue the mutually beneficial process.

The ultimate point is that media in general is built for entertainment not information, we should all act accordingly. That folks listen to a Limbaugh or a Hannity or an Olbermann to actually obtain information is depressing. They are entertainers nothing more or less.

The Takedown And the Counterattack

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

In Cramer We Trust

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things With Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Joke of the Day

TW: The tricky part for Cramer is that he has acknowledged many times that his schtick is also entertainment else if he actually tried to hold dialogue on say tier one capital ratios few would watch. Re Scarbourough, I would suggest he watch any Fox "News" show to ascertain whether Stewart is so unusual. When someone attacks a show on the COMEDY channel for a being a comedy, you know they are reaching, but again why is it that comedians are able to dissect what MSM either cannot or will not?

Quote Of the Day

"In this market the only people who have any business picking bottoms are proctologists"
--CNBC talking head

Kissin' Ass And Takin' Names

Conflict Is Increasingly TV's Life Blood

TW: Have posted previously on this, but I do not buy that media is biased for the progressives. I do buy that media is extremely biased in favor of conflict and depending upon the circumstances will favor whichever side is in the opposition (unless during wartime when everyone gets on a super patriot bandwagon). This piece illustrates and validates the point. I cannot stand this Dennis Kneale character from CNBC in particular but at this point if I see more than one face on the screen of CNBC or other networks I immediately turn the sound off.

From the Big Picture:
"I don’t know if you’ve noticed that since the financial crisis kicked into high gear last September, the amount of bickering on CNBC has increased exponentially. Earlier this week, it was announced that Jonathan Wald, the man behind all that shouting, would be leaving the network at the end of March. I thought that would be a good occasion to look at CNBC’s strategy which has been to encourage strong personalities, like Dennis Kneale to be on-air and in everyone’s face. If you haven’t seen this clip of Kneale scolding Charlie Gasparino, it’s worth watching. It nicely sets up this:

"It turns out Kneale is haughty but wrong. The constant carping, acting out, and cartoonish behavior has been anything but bad for CNBC’s brand. In fact, it is part of a conscious strategy to take what was once a staid place where the markets themselves starred and turn it into a free-for-all with heroes and villains and a running back story sort of like professional wrestling.

That strategy was executed with the constant hand of architect Jonathan Wald guiding his on-air team. It was a strategy that helped fend off Roger Ailes and Fox Business—remember them? But it also eventually led to the announcement Tuesday that Wald would be leaving the cable network at the end of the quarter."

“Conflict is king in cable television,” Wald says. “You want more than one guest at a time. You want cacophony, not a symphony.” That point of view is what made CNBC an odd combination of up-to-the-second market information, talk radio, and a freewheeling sports show that cuts into the action at every lull."

Rare Solid CNBC Analysis

TW: CNBC churns through dozens of talking heads daily, few are useful. Just as importantly the medium of throwing a bloviating talking head on the screen for two or three minutes usually with a corrsponding opposing bloviator is not conducive to useful analyis or discussion anyway. This cut, however, is 17 minutes without interruption focused solely on two Merrill Lynch professionals in particular David Rosenburg their chief economist who has been all over this economic crisis. The only hitch is Joe Kernan interrupting but I suppose CNBC believes he adds "color" by trying to oversimplify any guest remarks. This one is worth the time.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=959522950