Bernie Madoff... - Page 2

Re: Bernie Madoff...

I believe that he was. It's not that he didn't know better, it just that he desperately wanted to believe it was so. The reason I don't think he deliberately mislead people is because credibility is the most important asset people like him have. He wouldn't have risked his credibility with that bad advice if he hadn't convinced himself that it was true.

Which isn't to say there isn't a profit motive at work. Newspapers and cable news are filled with the kind of stories you'd once have only found in pop culture magazines like People. And People, in turn, is full of the kind of low-brow trash you'd once have only found in supermarket rags like the National Enquirer.

In addition to the lowering of standards, we're feeling the impact of a massive contraction in the news industry. There are less papers than ever before, with less news in them than ever before, managed by smallest staffs than ever before required to file news for more platforms and mediums than ever before. Pay in serious journalism is so low that only the trust-fund babies and those who can live off their spouse's income have the financial means to break into the industry. Coupled with an increased reliance on wire copy and freelance reporting, and you're left with an array of voices that is far less diverse on the things that matter than ever before. Paper mills are closing everywhere, which has driven up the cost of newsprint exponentially. Print and television advertising is falling off a cliff. Very few newspapers can afford bureaus, and almost all of them have dropped their international desks. Which in turn means less international coverage than ever before, when our fate is more tied in with the rest of the world than at any point in post-war history.

Good journalism will never be a huge profit generator. It requires a large number of people in a lot of different departments, including taking up office space around the country and the globe. It requires working class backgrounds, lower class backgrounds, upper class background, young, old, urban and rural. And it requires an audience that is willing to invest faith in gatekeepers that will point out what they most need to know. Google News allows us to find every article posted about a search query that interests us. But because the control is in our hands, it also gives us the power to ignore everything we're not actively seeking out. And that is an unhealthy development for a democracy.

Re: Bernie Madoff...

We're saying the same thing in different words. That's why I included that Cramer "knew or should have known".

Obviously he was swept along by the tide of quick-buck enthusiasm; he's never really shed the mentality of the hedge fund manager that he used to be. But that's precisely the time when someone at CNBC, if it were truly a news organization with real reporters, should have been raising a lot of questions, not fawning over billionaires and repeating CEOs' talking points as gospel and calling it "news".

Re: Bernie Madoff...

I agree, but I don't know how to remedy that. Sadly, more people would rather read USA Today soundbite articles than read something more in depth. They feel any story that requires them to turn a page is too boring. They want feel-good news.

Even stalwarts like the Chicago Tribune are under extreme financial pressure...I hate to think about how much more corruption would exist if watchdogs such as the Trib weren't around (and the Trib has softened things substantially in recent years, just to make itself financially viable).

Re: Bernie Madoff...

I disabused myself of the notion that news organizations are interested in conveying objective truth (including those that loudly trumpet their supposed objectivity) a long time ago. None of them are absent an agenda that often becomes sheer advocacy. I got a personal taste of this recently when I read a local newspaper article that quoted me regarding one of my projects. The wording did not accurately convey my view of the project or the views of the other members of my team, and the choice of words had nothing to do with "inadequate resources" (although I do think it had to do with the desire to sell newspapers, which has always been present).

Re: Bernie Madoff...

Even reading USA Today will leave the average reader more informed than someone who does not have a professional news source they trust. USA Today isn't comprehensive, but it at least provides a broad cross-section of news. The one upside to having brevity as an enforced editorial mandate is that the reporters don't have enough room to let their opinions filter in. That's something I've always disliked about the New York Times; the "analysis" in its articles too often comes across as editorializing within the news pages. If an opinion isn't quoted and attributed, it shouldn't be in a news article.

Re: Bernie Madoff...

CNN and MSNBC also pose as news channels, so maybe they share some of the blame, too.

I don't really buy the idea that it's the job of TV channels to catch people committing crimes. Isn't that what law enforcement is for?

A TV channel's job is to sell advertising (except premium channels like HBO) and provide programming which will attract viewers to watch that advertising.

Did CNBC do anything to promote Madoff or encourage people to "invest" with him? I don't know, because I don't watch it... but I don't see how his actions are their fault.

And Holadem, it's a fact that many people DID pursue Madoff and practically beg him to invest their money. He had a good reputation for a long time, and people trusted him. So naturally, word got around, and others started seeking him out.

For those saying prison is not punishment, what do you suggest? I think for a man used to living in luxury, being sent to prison is a bigger punishment than it would be for those of us who never experienced a lavish lifestyle.

I wonder if the lady advocating waterboarding Madoff supports that technique being used on, say, suspected terrorists. For some reason my guess is no.

Re: Bernie Madoff...

No one in this discussion has suggested that CNBC, or any other media outlet, is in any way responsible for Madoff's actions.

A CNBC commentator did try to suggest that Madoff was somehow responsible, in part, for the current financial crisis. In response, I opined that CNBC bears more responsibility in that regard than Madoff. That is all.

Re: Bernie Madoff...

I still don't understand the anger aimed at CNBC. As someone who has the station on in the background all day, I get irritated with some of the regurgitation and can understand why certain elements get panned. But like I said earlier, they are in the business of promoting a product called capitalism.

For the most part, I think CNBC has always advocated that people have a balanced, diversified portfolio with stocks as the centerpiece. And this advice is similar to almost every reputable investment professional you can find. While some of their commercials border on snake-oil ("If gold goes to $2,000 an ounce, the coins I'm holding in my hands could be worth $150,000!"), I think almost all of the guests they interview stay within the bounds of legitimate strategies...i.e., I don't hear anyone touting penny stocks. Jim Cramer, one of the few on-air personalities who makes specific stock picks, actually advocated getting totally out of stocks late last year (when the Dow was about 35% higher).

I don't think most people mistake CNBC for hard-hitting journalism and I don't believe they promote themselves as such.

Re: Bernie Madoff...

As I said previously, Brian, I think this boils down to a philosophical difference over what it means when you style yourself a news organization. I agree with you that they're in the business of "promotion", and to me that's the problem right there.

As I said earlier: They should rename the network "E! Business". It better describes what they do.

As to why they're getting so much flak, they brought it on themselves. It started with Rick Santelli's rant, which was too ripe a target for Jon Stewart and The Daily Show to let pass. Then Cramer, spotlight-junkie that he is, couldn't let it slide and made the rounds trying to defend himself. That kept the story alive for another week, until Cramer finally showed up to tell Stewart he'd try to do better. (And if you believe that, I've got an investment fund for ya . . . )

Re: Bernie Madoff...

Well, he did appear genuinely contrite...

--
H

Re: Bernie Madoff...

He didn't have much choice after Stewart hit him with those interview tapes in which he talked about how, as a hedge fund manager, he used to sucker the market. After that, Cramer could hardly keep sitting there protesting that he was taken in by the financial industry, like he was some innocent.

Re: Bernie Madoff...

Bernie Madoff Scandal simplified.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJ8OjAB_e3g

Re: Bernie Madoff...

Here is an interesting take on the Wall Street job losses:

Bonuses Make the Busted Go Boom - Companies * US * News * Story - CNBC.com

The best quote: "there has been a misallocation of talent into finance and the industry just can't support that many jobs without leverage"