You're now on the archive server. Commenting has been disabled.
CNBC Viewership Plunges 50% In October
If anyone wants to know why CNBC anchors are so pale and nervous these days, look no further. As Comcast CEO Brian Roberts considers what to keep and what to, well, cut, post his digestion of NBC Universal (assuming deal rumors are true naturally) his eyes likely cast casual nervous glances at Nielsen reports of CNBC viewership. Yet his nervousness is quite minor compared to what actual employees must be feeling after Nielsen reported a 50% plunge in CNBC vierwership in October year over year. Specifically, CNBC has experienced a massive 52% decline in overall viewers during business day hours (5 am - 7 pm), and a not much better 49% drop in its demo (25-54) in the month of October as compared to last year. Specific shows that are likely to follow the fate of Dennis Kneale's recently cancelled 8pm gobbledygook are likely the Kudlow Report and Mad Money, which are down 59% and 56%, respectively.
While one can speculate about the causes of the drop (call it readers who can read between the propganda teleprompter lines), one thing the drop does explain is why CNBC has had to recently resort to advertising products for incontinence among other bodily malfunctions.
As always, Zero Hedge wishes the network a speedy recovery and a return to what it does best: reporting the news, without bias, without propaganda, and without an agenda. Once that happens CNBC and its new/old owners may be surprised how quickly its rating will return to normal.
»
- 28251 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
Similar Articles You Might Enjoy:
- It's 4 PM: Does Comcast Know Where CNBC's Viewers Are?
- Distrust In US Media Hits Record High, As CNBC (And Especially Mad Money) Viewership Drops To Multi-Year Low
- With Total Viewers Sliding To 7 Year Lows, Is CNBC Fading Into Obscurity?
- Sale Process Of NBC Universal To Comcast Confirmed By CNBC
- CNBC Viewership Plunges To Eight Year Lows
Call it: Poetic Justice, Law of Karma, or What goes around, comes round. Any way you look at CNBC (the Cramer's, the Liesman's, the Pisani's, or any other of their pompous, idiotic taking heads) -- and this network is reaping what they sown. Poetic. Maybe Martha Stewart's network or DIY could pick them up for late night "infomercials."
Too bad we can't post sound wave files...the laugh from Nelson from the Simpson's comes to mind:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzSnk3Rbkgk
Remember when a snippet of truth leaks out of CNBC how much the ratings blow up.....santelli getting pissed at obama in the pits that one day.
Give santelli his own show and see where the viewers flock to
Give santelli his own show and see where the viewers flock to.
Ironically by doing so CNBC would be admitting to exactly what they are desperately trying to deny, that they are a pom pom shaking propaganda pushing "bidness" network for the Ponzi.
Sometimes you're so far into the lie that you can't admit you're lying without committing suicide. At least in your own mind. For everyone else, you're simply returning to sanity.
This is why you fire the coach or CEO, so everyone in the organization can finally say what everyone outside the organization already knows.
Me thinks CNBC viewership is akin to the lack in volume...... most 'normal' investors have simply tuned out the market and CNBC at the same time.
The markets are being driven by robots, not the classic investor. Unfortunately, robots do not qualify as a "viewer" in the Neilson ratings.
I bet by next spring they will, though.
most excellent point.....
Not only content free bullshit, but the market now resembles a two bit traveling carnival, full of medicine barkers..
Tough to report on that shit objectively..
That is exactly right, when the markets tanked their viewship skyrocketed. Now that the markets have gone the other way....and you're right also, by next year things will have changed yet again. This ridiculous rally is over.
You are quite correct.
Erin "Joe Biden" Burnett.... just a matter of time before she says something really stupid.
You mean she hasn't yet? Sorry but from my point of view, she's in the danger zone on the stupid meter daily with a pop here and there into thermonuclear dumb ass danger-to-self-and-humanity stupid.
Do you have the equivalent Bloomberg numbers? Just curious since viewership always goes down when the market isn't tanking. Of course that doesn't make up for the fact that CNBS has become the opinion house of morons instead of a news reporting organization but I'm still curious about Bloomberg's numbers.
It would be good to see Bloomberg's numbers.
My bet is they are hurting given that they've gone to more color and less info on their whole set-up. (moreover, their website is cheerleader central)
The whole Margaret Brennan, strutting across the stage at the beginning of her show every morning is funny/sad.
I'm so tired of reading Bberg headlines that say futures are up because of "optimism." It makes me want to stab the monitor.
"they've gone to more color and less info"
OK, I'm learning the new jargon now: "color" is the new word for "spin", which was the new word for "lie"........got it.
the top was in when Becky "homewrecker" Quick, was asked to go on Letterman.....pathetic...
It's very simple,,As Gerald Celente said, when people have nothing to lose "they lose it" and the last thing on their mind is investing, in any way.. Are you going to tell me that there are a majority of American in this market,,,cut the shit,,,no one is in this bizarre... Except HFT and fucking stealth goons....
Foreign equities, where you get 25% dividends with PE Ratio of 5 to 1 and take advantage of the currency plunge of the dollar.
agree with your last sentence. My portfolio is 100% foreign equities which are growing revenues at 25%-75% per year and with PEs of less than 10. There are plenty of value plays in the world with very compelling multi-year growth data. Unlike US stocks, they are actually growing revenues at a fast clip.
My portfolio is 100% foreign equities which are growing revenues at 25%-75% per year and with PEs of less than 10. There are plenty of value plays in the world with very compelling multi-year growth data. Unlike US stocks, they are actually growing revenues at a fast clip.
What a load of BS.
right, year over year ratings declines need context. viewership was probably up across all the biz networks last fall as everyone was paralyzed watching the economic train wreck. For full context, Bloomberg numbers would be interesting - both now and from last Oct.
Like for the news outlets - if there's no news, ratings inevitably go down - so we get balloon boy hyped up events - manufactured news. The business nets - regardless of orientation - are also enslaved by market cycles and news.
From that perspective, ratings may be a good way to value advertising - but they are not a good way to measure the value of content.
What's ironic is that there's plenty of news out there worth investgating-- especially in the business and finance world. It's just that there are very few journalists willing to do the deep digging to uncover some ugly truths. So we get Balloon Boy in all his splendor.
For those jornalists willing to make the leap, ZH would be a great starting point.
It just won't ever be shown on CNBC.
More outfits like fridays then...
High Hem line Ms Quick,
Skin tight white MCC's
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/market-recap-wholesale-selling#comment-...
Maybe easier just to give Ms Drury a pay rise and put her US prime....
I thought CNBC was just the name of a time slot dedicated to advertisements. I learn something new every day.
I thought it was the snuggie channel.. co-sponsored by ecomagination
I sincerely hope the whole network is cancelled.
october 08 was a very different time than october 09 btw the bailouts, lehman blowup, aig etc
a year ago, people looked to cnbc to make sense of all of this, now they come to zero hedge and denniger. a crazy year
to add....santelli v liesman or pento v liesman should be required watching for all college econ students
Exactly. To get a more level read we'd have to compare October '07, '08, and '09; if memory serves correctly 10/08 was probably CNBC's highest rated month since inception.
a little more cleavage from the cnbc girls should improve ratings for a month or so.
you must mean less cleavage from those skanks @ cnbc....
At this point, the only way they'll be able to put lipstick on this pig is to kill said pig live and serve it with a salad to MCC and Beaker.
You actually WANT TO see CNBC women? i'd rather harpoon a whale at a bar... unless you are talking about giving a CNBC gal a backdoor delivery as a hate f...
Geeze, those CNBC woman are about as sexy as the Pontiac Aztek.
I think we're just gonna have to see some
skin. MCC, Becky, that chick from OZ...deep dive frontal tops...let's go !
Signed,
Ad Hoc Directors of Programming
Trying to visualize more skin from BQ all I can see is a plucked chicken...........YUCK.......
LOL -- Warren loves it.
I notice some of them showing up on MSNBC now (although not during Dylan Ratigan's show thankfully). Melissa dipsh!t shows up more and more. They should hit the unemployment line.
The anchorettes on CNBC can always try for a coveted spot as a "Comcast - On Demand lead in girl" slinging pay per view IF they are lucky enough to actually have Comcast save the NBC flea ridden dog from its three day fate and take it home.
Holy Crap !
People actually demand to see That ?!!!?
Wow.
Can we limit Steve Liesman and Maria's compensation and bonus? GE used most of the TLGP. where is the outrage???
anything to get rid of krudblow....but as someone noted the times have changed and i doubt that viewership has dropped because the iq and sensibilities of potential viewers has risen....there will be no iq bubble to interfere with ratings...
One of the last 2 remaining viewers got up to go to the washroom?
HoHoHoHo.... We're just waiting for the flush.
"Lowest rated sitcom on the tube!"
- Entertainment Weekly
short them like C
CNBC just had someone on saying the the $ has nothing to do with interest rates. He then goes on to sight Oct '08 - wow
And they always shut Pento up like he's a worn out GE appliance. They just show the poor guy's face and don't even let him talk anymore. When the next leg down starts in earnest, of course he will be co-hosting Squawk with Chanos and Einhorn.
But they always let Peter Schiff talk all he wants.
Schiff gets all his points in, noone shuts him up and he is markedly right.
Just die already.
The fact that Kudlow is the worst performer is a bit dismaying. His show more than any other on CNBS features intelligent debate and gives all guests more than the usual 35 seconds available to anyone trying to make a point. Even if most his guests are koolaid drinkers, he gives opposing viewpoints ample time to make their case. And he never has a decabox.
Unfortunately I don't see how a CNBS producer looks at these numbers and doesn't conclude they need more decabox and shorter soundbites.
Very true, Steak. Kudlow himself is a broken record, but he does have good guests. The network as a whole seems to be headed toward the Dem vs. Repub screamfest model -- as if we don't already have enough of that. The "interview" of Jerry Brown the other day was embarrassing for them. If they covered topics like ZH does and Taibbi does, they'd get the viewers. But that would mean they'd lose all the financial backing of Wall Street. Rattigan on MSNBC does seem to be moving in that direction; I don't know how his ratings are doing.
All kidding aside, once an outlet like ZH starts up a streaming video service live on the web during market hours, they will probably surpass CNBC and Fox Business. Until that time, a market will remain for cable business news channels. (I remember back in the day setting my VCR to record FNN during work hours so I could watch it when I got home.)
Kudlow! I stopped watching the channel when they renvewed his contract -- rude, insane, biased blabbermouth, jumping on guest's sentences -- intolerable!
Prudence
While I agree that Kudlow has the best show, I find it too busy.
It's another example of more not being better. Several guests, all talking at the same, invariably makes a show unwatchable, even if the guests knowledgeable.
Very true, Steak. Kudlow himself is a broken record, but he does have good guests. The network as a whole seems to be headed toward the Dem vs. Repub screamfest model -- as if we don't already have enough of that. The "interview" of Jerry Brown the other day was embarrassing for them. If they covered topics like ZH does and Taibbi does, they'd get the viewers. But that would mean they'd lose all the financial backing of Wall Street. Rattigan on MSNBC does seem to be moving in that direction; I don't know how his ratings are doing.
All kidding aside, once an outlet like ZH starts up a streaming video service live on the web during market hours, they will probably surpass CNBC and Fox Business. Until that time, a market will remain for cable business news channels. (I remember back in the day setting my VCR to record FNN during work hours so I could watch it when I got home.)
disagree-Kudlow might be a bright financial analyst but he is a terrible host. if a guest is making a point Kudlow doesn't like, he cuts him off..."the producers are yelling at me, I have to get out of here"
I wonder what the viewership statistics are if you factor all of the remaining viewers who have CNBC on mute.
"You don't understand Mr. Edwards. Those numbers ARE with CNBC on mute."
"Chortle..." (shakes head).
oh crap, someone said Chortle already.
I have CNBC on mute on one of my desktop screens all day. What has completely gotten out of hand is the "breaking news" flashing lights and banner every 15 minutes.
One day last week I decided to count the times I noticed it out of the corner of my eye. I stared counting at 8:30 when I walked into my office. I stopped at 15 and it was only 2:30 PM eastern.
Stop the madness.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR69gkMSCIM
they won't report news until they're out of Immelt's clutches
Fact is JI sold the company to the admin. to get out of their mess hence great PR and transglobal crosslines biz deals.
I disagree. Immelt can be an inside seller just like everyone else. I worked in television before I worked on Wall Street and the whores are all the same, my friend. It actually works to Immelt's benefit when volatility ramps-because these networks don't control the markets, the markets control them.
Yes, they have become ridiculous cheerleaders and act like complete idiots on air when the market is rallying. It was the same in 1999-- but blame the likes of Tyler Matheson and whatever the other honcho's name is for the absurd piece of shit that they have become. Once upon a time they were a decent network without 8 headshots all screaming at eachother. Once upon a time, the opinions of the anchors were not considered relevant or valid. They were pretty good 12 years ago.
The truth is, if they get a scoop of something ugly going down--they need to be ahead of Reuters and Bloomberg. That's what makes the ratings go up. And no matter how you slice up GE--TV people are just regular old egomaniacal folks that want to be the one that broke the story.
It is about numbers. It is about being first. If they would just shut their fucking anchors up (who none of us care about what they have to say at all) with their opinionated crap. Stop their 8 boxes of talking heads gone amuck. Stop making news based on my good name Howard Beale--and for you young ones that movie was Network and totally what CNBS has become....then one day they might have a station again. But I'll probably get killed first--oh yeah, I forgot, I was the only man ever killed for bad ratings.
Timmay on Bloomberg TV right now at the SIFMA conference
http://www.bloomberg.com/avp/avp.htm?clipSRC=LiveBTV
and V disappoints on guidance.....bye/bye down 3% (not biduesque (sorry tyler) but still disappointing.
I think somebody read your comment and decided the pump was on.
Kind of strange action for AH.
But I'm just making BANK off of Cramer's CIT recommendation !
*chortle*
it's brian roberts
Did anyone just see those AH volume spikes on SPY?
2.6 Million & 6.2 Million Sold... and then the same numbers bought.
What the hell was that about?
likely a vwap cross. After the close, when all day vwap can be calc'd, firms often cross the trade at whatever price vwap was. Just a guess....I didnt look specifically at your example
The Fed has actually secured all show time as a paid advertisement for the recovery. Normally this would require acknowledgment that the programming is a paid advertisement but due to the Fed's legal and inalienable right to secrecy that requirement was dismissed as it might cloud the legitimacy of the programming.
Perhaps Kudlow and Cramer should wear skimpier clothing...
I hate CNBC, its worthless. But, comparing their viewership to last October is weak. Oct 08 was one of the biggest financial meltdowns in history, and so viewership would clearly be way up compared to now. Compare viewership to June 06 and you may have an interesting report - if the numbers are much different.
I think this post is very similar to the quality I have become accustomed to at CNBC - weak financial journalism with an agenda to kill msm. Stick with interesting stories...youre good at it Tyler. You derail and waste all our time with this crap.
-1
-1-1=??
Seems yoy had enough free time to comment.
Interesting point. And do you think CNBC's advertisers care?
That's a dramatic decline, whether last year was unusually high, or not. No - the advertisers don't care.
The irony here is that they're actually cheerleading their own decline, in a way ... "nothing to see here folks - move along"... ;-)
You should see who can advertise for next to free in smaller markets now. We're talking used car dealers and local yocals in upstate NY. When the ratings go down, the ad rates get cheap--for the cable guys and CNBS.
"CNBC Viewership Plunges 50% In October" - Yeah Tyler, and their performance is nothing more than a delayed mirror of the market . That, along with their inaccurate predictions, proves their objectivity. (at least that's what I argue for my clients at sentencing).
I can tell you for sure their advertisers dont care how their ratings compare with last Oct. What they care about is now - how many people are watching now and how many they think might watch next month when they consider whether to advertise. Do you decide if youre going to buy stock based on where it was last Oct or where it is now and what you think it will do going forward? Youre cherry picking a data point.
Comparing viewership to last Oct is like comparing economic data from March 09 with right now and calling it a green shoot because its improving. Ya, its improving but from the worst levels seen in decades. Sure, viewership is down, but from a time when everyone and their mother was checking CNBC every 15 minutes to see whats up.
Another way to look at it is to say "hey, look at new car sales - wow, compared to August they are terrible!" Doesnt make much sense right?
Not trying to be an ass - just trying to sugest this site focus on its good content - which has been great - and do less of the hype based crap with sensational headlines. Too much hype/headline and you start inching toward what we get all day long on CNBC.
Oh come on, we all need some comic relief now and then.
Bingo! Their adverts...they are shrills for the industry, imagine if they ever told the truth? The adverts would jump ship to Fox!
Heyyyy, any press is good press buddy. We at CNBC are a lagging indicator. Cmon people talk dirty to me.
Then why do you watch this show? ...sucka
Rickets +1000. Comparing to Oct 2008 when even little oled ladies were paying attention to business is nonsense.
Folks - stop whining about CNBC (which I agree is not particularly good content) -- the very easy fix is to stop watching it. There is nothing to complain about if you don't watch it.
This site spends WAY too much time crying over Goldman Sachs and CNBC. Get over it.
Not a backer of Gawk Box or any of the other pieces of trash they put on.....But how are the viewership numbers vs. October 2007? Last year at this time...everyone I know was panicing and believing it was going to end. Everyone, stupidly, turned to CNBS to provide information (lies and spin). To compare this year's numbers are a bit unfair as their viewership most likely saw a HUGE spike up last year. In fact it was spike's like that which probably gave way to Denise Knealle (down on all 4's) getting her own show.
I pretend to believe what they say, they pretend is truth.
but lying lowlife scum is what they are
BETTER THAN EXPECTED! Most analysts expected a slighly lower drop.
lol
My message to the networks: Bring back "Battle of the Network Stars". That was quality! That was "must see" tv!-
Not sure if any of you guys have seen this yet.Absolutely hilarious.
Made me think of cheeky.
Not sure if any of you guys have seen this yet.Absolutely hilarious.
http://www.monkeybusinessblog.com/mbb_weblog/2009/10/hell-it-takes-even-...
Made me think of cheeky.
He's not funny any more. He was funny about a year ago when he was smoking dope during his Youtubes. Now he gives you his name and shows you his physical bullion. He's asking to be robbed. That's what drugs do to cognizant thought. Next.
on the topic of media - this ad en español featuring El presidente Barack Obama pitching for Señor Corzine in NJ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfxO7F_-8_s&
Rose to Geithner: "Has all the TARP money been spent?"
Geithner: "you mean the TARP money ahh no ... but we want to make sure that we fix all parts of the economy"
The guy is such a horrible liar. By the way, I count obfuscation and evading questions as lies.
tim geithner is a loser. he is a pathetic liar and a waterboy for that pig larry summers and ben bernanke.
side note to president o....these guys are wrecking the usa and are slowly guaranteeing that yours will be a one term gig.
EDIT..I forgot...Geithner is also a tax cheat as far as I am concerned. Loser.
+10
Meanwhile the Zero Hedge insurgency keep rising,
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/zerohedge.com
Yeah!
Boycott the lying, cheerleading, shill morons!
Looking at these numbers, I don't see why Cramer is perceived as having a huge fan base. His ratings are the same as his lead-in, Fast Money. My guess is that most of Cramer's viewers are market junkies who would watch CNBC, regardless of what was on at that time.
"the Kudlow Report and Mad Money, which are down 59% and 56%, respectively."
I guess this means another cable channel showing "Friends" reruns.
CNBS sucks, but at least they don't have a damn Hair-Lip for their #1 morning anchor like Bloomberg does with Betty-Lou.
She must be connected because I have never seen this anywhere else in my lifetime.
She is a stunner jackass, and her voice makes me horney
The entire cast is overpaid and should be outsourced to India. Call it poetic justice.
What do you expect when guests need to remind the anchors about not talking simultaneously otherwise, it does not help viewers.
CNBC... maybe is time to bail them out either!
Two words; Carnival Barkers
oops, forgot to sign in. Two words; Carnival Barkers
Meanwhile: Percent of global Internet users who visit zerohedge.com: 3 month change 478%
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/zerohedge.com
What a fucking sham(e).
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/cnbc/rebecca_jarvis_leaves_cnbc_1408...
Aw, c’mon. It’s not their (CNBC’s) fault.
Hell, if they could do their jobs -- they would!!!
:)
Sheer bras and thigh highs will get me to tune in. Otherwise, I'd rather sniff glue.
In the final analysis more and more CNBC viewers have made this realization... And not a moment too soon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQ4bfhV1zr8
They will never be able to be objective. Lying and hyping is part of their culture. In fact, nepotism rules the day there, including anchors married to producers, as well as children of executives appearing.
The whole ruse is based on a naive, foolhardy public, and "professionals" that want to hear their lies repeated over and over.
The next equity decline and the viewing public will call for their heads.
Is it possible that in their attempt to fend off Fox Business, that they did so by emulating them? Sound effects, bombs bursting in air and even less substance than ever?
How about moving Kudlow to the midnight slot and having him partner with Kernan? Two turds with one flush...
Don't like name calling but I make an exception for Dennis Kneale, what a jurk.What a Phony smug. I think he costs CNBC more viewers than anybody else on the network. Attacking Karl Denninger from market-ticker as "blogger" as if that's somtin inferior and than even thinking that the public is on his side. ahahaaaah! NOT!
I only have CNBC on because they have the best index numbers, Gold and Oil prices and bonds posted real time. If Bloomburg or FOX Business would redesign their tickers I would leave CNBC completely.
You don't need to explain yourself to us...
Same here. I turn on the sound for Art Cashin and that's it.
Bigger picture, cable news channel viewers are fleeing to the net which you've probably noticed here.
BK their pension, outsource their job, then tell them to buy more stock. BOOYAH!!
But Kudlow is my favorite fascist pipsqueak!
50% eh?... Hmmm...I guess the other 50% are masochistic, complicit or just plain stupid and love to be lied too.
Friends and family of the CNBC crew are likely included in that 50%.
Maybe.
Oh hell, who am I kidding?
Down 50% eh? 50% yoy from huge chaos to today's crappy but more stable market...still terrible, but you are starting to sound like the government shaping headlines that way....
It would help if CNBC quit reporting gov't data, I mean, lies.
Come now. Surely you don't think the government's lies would be so amateur. At least the government can lie convincingly every now and again.
that's a truly low blow ML. lol
There's a simple explanation.
Everyone who watched Cramer and actually followed his advice is now flat broke and had to sell their television.
M.L: you always crack me up...with your comedic truth...:-)
Looks like that loud mouthed Cramer is due for some backroom "talks", Mad Money ratings down 50% PLUS.
Booyah!
His company isn't doing so well either. Double Booyah!
Hypothetical, if someone buys CNBC, and the convicts (at CNBC) took over the prison during the transition, or further. Imagine the ensuing hilarity.
Is this really reliable concerning CNBC's future? I am as big a critic of CNBC as anyone but in October many more people were likely to watch CNBC because of the credit crisis than they were to watch CNN or The Jeffersons reruns. People are not as anxious about the credit crisis anymore so many people who were not inclined to watch CNBC except for in an exceptional circumstance like the credit crisis went back to their regular viewing habits.
YOY numbers are a bit fixed, since we already know that viewership skyrocketed and then they went down. How do they compare month-over-month, and compared to the average pre-crisis? They might have gained viewers overall compared to pre-crisis.
My take is that viewers lost interest in stocks and finance.
They realized that the "casino where nobody loses" closed for them last year. And they voted with their feet (or their off switch).
I would guess that Bloomberg's numbers are similar.
I would bet that the coming collapse will see the end of CNBC and probably Bloomberg too. There will be no interest.
Otto
Now, now Tyler--let's be fair.
CNBC had a HUGE ratings boost October of 2008. Wonder why? Oh, yeah, that's when the financial world as we knew it ended.
I would compare September of 08 to September of 09 to be more fair.
Of course, a lot of viewers have wised up and stopped drinking the kool-aid (maybe they watched Jon Stewart disembowel the Cramer Clown).
Here is the data requested: http://www.zerohedge.com/article/annual-decline-cnbc-viewership-accelerates-down-37-overall-viewers-category
Wow--Sept 08 to Sept 09 down 37% Don't I feel like an a$$.
td set you up like a ball and pin on that one.
don't feel bad, he's just practicing for his new job at the gs prop party
Must be that picture next to your name.
Sept 08 was also a crash month.
so sure, they're down 50% since last October, but they're flat month-over-month. They're probably not too worried about it but they're probably disappointed they couldn't keep any of the viewers.
I'm one of those viewers they lost permanently.
CNBS is a lagging indicator.
Viewership seems to be up from July. Come on ZH. You lose cred posting this sort of sensationalism.
Even crackberry addicts leave the boobtube alone in July...
I prefer CNBC-World. They have Mandy Drury from Australia.
I watch CNBC less and less. I get tired of listening to shrieking voices from the floor and especially I get tired of people shouting over each other. But mostly I get tired of certain anchors who try to impress with their Fox-like challenges to the guests, interrupting them, disputing their point of view. We want straight, thoughtful news and guests' opinions (not anchors' opinions). That's all. We can find it online. Why should we watch a failing attempt at entertainment business news?
Sesame Street is more informative in the morning. Bring back The Count!!! Bye bye CNBC!! What a bunch of idiots!!! Good riddence!!!
A pity because CNBC Europe is actually worth watching. The females look like wildebeests sometimes, but really do know their onions. The guys have more conservative ties and shirts and don’t compete with their guests. Of course the Ponzi scheme in Europe is a little less exciting and this shows in the show sets and content, but overall, I'm more than happy with the European edition.
I feel sorry for people like Art Cashin and Rick Santelli who offer legitimate and very worthwhile information for the U.S edition. Quite sad really.
art ought to tell those cnbc phucks to stick it in their asses and be a daily contributor to zh...whaddya say Arthur? go out on the right side of the trade and help save this country from assholes like geithner, bernanke, and summers.
Down 50% like Cramer's Chartible Trust. He should just give those poor charities the money instead of putting it in a trust and losing it for them !!!!