Part 3: Don't drink CNBC-Aid.

I'm ready to be done with this series. I think I realized that last post was a bit unnecessary, but maybe it served to clear some stuff up from Part 1. Oh well, let's get this started because it's time to get on to some other subjects I've been thinking about. By the way, how about this sweet and appropriate Google Image find?

Stewart's Argument (More detailed version in part 2):
- CNBC claims expertise, thus the public instilled trust in the network.
- Through ignorance or negligence, CNBC's experts failed to warn their viewers of the current financial crisis - costing their viewers lots-o-coin.
- CNBC has betrayed viewer's trust and should be considered responsible for failing to expose things earlier.

This argument is flawed and here's why:

The first thing to understand is that CNBC is a business with a product to sell, financial advice, and a profit to make, from advertising revenue. CNBC sells their product by convincing the public that their financial advice is the best. The more people who are convinced of this, the higher CNBC's ratings. This translates into profit because higher ratings means CNBC can charge more for advertising (commercials). Thus, CNBC will do as much as it can to boost its image the leader in Financial Media.

In this light, it doesn't take rocket science to apply the "don't drink the Flavor-Aid yet" principle. One shouldn't believe CNBC's claim to be financial experts simply because they advertised themselves as such. Cynical? Yes, but seriously, how do GM and Chrysler, advertise themselves (still)?" If, as Jon Stewart claims, people genuinely feel deceived by CNBC because its experts cost them their investment portfolio, I would say that they can't just blame CNBC.

One thing that really frustrated me in this interview was Jon Stewart's reaction when Jim Cramer argued that it is difficult for CNBC to report accurate information on companies because CEOs and their companies lie. Stewart replied: "I am under the assumption...that you don't just take their word at face value, that you actually then go around and try to figure it out (Pt. 3, 5:40-6:02)." So does this argument apply only to the financial corporations? Why not employ it regarding the media sources (read: media businesses) reporting on those corporations?

Stewart begs this question himself when he asks: "But isn't that part of the problem...anytime you [CNBC] sell people the idea that you don't have to do anything but sit back and you will get 10-20% back on your money, don't you always know that that's going to be a lie (Part 3, 3:37-3:52)?" The answer is yes, but Stewart fails to hold all culprits accountable. It's a problem to sell that idea, but isn't it also a problem to buy it? After all, "you always know that that's going to be a lie." Today's marketplace for financial analysis is very competitive and offers too many good products to claim victimization by one source.

I ardently believe in journalistic integrity and think the media should be held to a high standard of honesty. There is something to say about the quality of CNBC's reporting, but that's not the point of this post. If CNBC reports something that doesn't sound right, there are many (and arguably much better) options for a second, third, fourth, opinion. If upon further inspection, CNBC's advice doesn't work, then stop using it. They will either be forced to improve or be put out of business. If one fails to cross reference financial advice from CNBC (especially if that advice is counter-intuitive) with other sources, that person has forfeited their right to complain.

In conclusion, Stewart's argument has greater significance because it plays to two tragically symptomatic elements of our society - (this is also what I believe gives his argument a populist vibe). Primarily, it projects blame away from the individual and onto someone else, usually a vague entity for which no single person can be held accountable. This holds true here as "financial media" was the offender, even though Jim Cramer came to personify it. Secondly, the problem is confounded by the gospel of convenience. People want money as fast and easy as possible. Watching CNBC's "Fast Money"for financial advice sure is a lot easier than reading a newspaper or researching on the internets, especially if CNBC promises that they are the true experts. Stewart is concerned about the betrayal of trust. I'm more concerned with how easily one gives that trust away.

I guess now all we have to do is wait and see if Stewart will have the same effect on CNBC that he did on Crossfire (or here for the video).