CNBC Anchors On A Mission

In a different place and time, journalists sought to discover information and pass it along to readers.  Really good journalists took complex information and helped to explain it.  Investigative journalists discovered things the average reader would not have found on his own.

What happened?

Too Many Opinions

Something has gone wrong, seriously wrong.  It is an excess of opinion.

Every commentator has so many opinions — strong ones.  This is true even among our favorite blog sites.  Opinions sell.  And if you get on TV, they really want an aggressive position.  Wow.

The sites that we admire as gatekeepers regularly feature straight opinion pieces  by people who have no expertise on the subject in question.  Where are the “Roger Eberts” of the blogosphere?

The CNBC Example

We are choosing an example from CNBC not because their coverage or anchors are worse than anyone else, but because it is typical and prominent.  We also do not mean to pick on Erin Burnett, who has done some great one-on-one interviews.

Having said this, we need to make the point with real evidence and Squawk on the Street provided the perfect illustration.  Here is the segment for our example.

The Background

The producers had scheduled a segment where Noah Blackstein and Roy Williams (two experts worth listening to) would discuss stocks that might benefit from the Obama transition.  Since this is an important subject for investors, we clicked off the TIVO mute button.  The segment was a disappointment.  After the initial presentation by the two experts, Erin Burnett took them in a different direction.  Instead of drilling deeper on their ideas, she questioned whether any program could work.  Her comment, via the magic of TIVO was as follows:

One in five Americans is living in a home with a mortgage that they are paying every month is worth more than their home will ever be worth again when they sell it.  Homes are American???s biggest asset.  Until that is fixed, it is hard to see how people are going to feel good, spend money, buy things from companies who then put money into plants and invest and hire and wages go back up.  So all of this stimulus, you can talk about it going into biotech or going to building broadband.  We have a core problem that isn???t fixed.  Are either one of you worried or afraid that we could spend another trillion and in six months be back having the same conversation about another stimulus?

She did a repeat performance in the next interview segment, saying “One in five Americans live in a home where the mortgage is worth more than the home.”

What Went Wrong?

We started with a good journalist asking experts questions about something where they had knowledge.  A moment later, it was different.

We had a journalist who had recently learned a fact that she found interesting.  To her it seemed all-important.  She wanted to discuss it with everyone, including those who had absolutely no expertise.  What happens when someone talking about the Obama transition and biotech is asked about housing?  Nearly everyone in this position just gives an opinion.  Everyone involved was out of the Ted Williams happy zone.

Analyzing the Housing Opinion

Careful readers will have noted the slight change from the first rendition of the fact about mortgages to the second.

It is an important difference. One problem on the air is that sources are cited sloppily, if at all.  Let us compare the stated opinion with some facts.

1. The CNBC anchor took the guests out of their happy zone, asking them questions about something where they were not experts.
2. Data about home ownership is collected by household, not by person.  Anyone who talks about a “percentage of Americans” is getting a sloppy start.
3. Over 35% of households do not own homes, and have no mortagages.
4. About 40% of homeowners have no mortgages, so they should not be included.
5. There is no evidence that mortgages are higher than the homes “will ever be worth again,” a statement that has no face validity.

A more accurate conlcusion would be from Business Week as follows:

Over 7.5 million mortgages or 18% of all properties with a mortgage were in a negative equity position as of the end of September 2008. There are an additional 2.1 million mortgages that are approaching negative equity. These are defined as mortgages within 5% of being in a negative equity position. Negative-equity and near-negative equity mortgages combined account for over 23% of all properties with a mortgage.

The article goes on to state that the problem is heavily skewed to a few states.

Conclusion

None of the interviewed guests questioned the accuracy of the stated facts.  That is not what one does when getting a guest spot on CNBC.

The CNBC anchor team has morphed from being expert journalists to being a team of subject area “CNBC all-stars.”

Readers should note that we do not question the importance of housing to the economy.  It has been a frequent theme here.

When analyzing the problem, it is important to be accurate.  Let us not make the facts even worse than they are.  Since the experts raised no questions, we doubt that the average viewer spotted problems.  It is yet another element of Wall Street Truthiness.

Subscribe by RSS Subscribe by Email

Comment by Doug Angstrom

2008-12-24 05:58:16

Great point! CNBC anchors have totally forgotten that they are not the news….they are supposed to report the news…it is an epidemic of “diarrhea of the mouth” on that show!

Reply to this comment