In Depth: Speculation instead of fact reporting…
The above image from this morning burned a hole in my head as the day wore on and I feel compelled to say something about it and similar stories being looked at as causes for the financial crisis we face. Look at that lower third which breathlessly asks the silly question, “Are stocks selling off on fears of liberal control of Washington?”
Honesty, I expect better from someone who’s reportedly the best financial anchor on cable news. Neil Cavuto is a smart guy. He can be intelligent and thoughtful when he wants to. But every once in a while he and his network’s Saturday business program offers up shiny object subject matter which does little to either get to the bottom of what’s going on or offer a way out.
Lest someone think I’m just beating up on “mean old FNC”, a couple of days ago CNBC’s Maria Bartiromo, reputed to be another one of the “business journalism elite” offered up this piece of fluff masquerading as journalism: (via NewsBusters)
Welcome back, down here on the floor with Dylan. Just walking around, hearing some rumors about one of the reasons that this market bounced off the bottom is there are rumors in the market, speculation that the race for the White House is getting tighter. And one trader telling us just moments ago that he thought the reason that the market was so low was when Obama had the lead because he’s gonna raise taxes. And then when things got tighter, things bounced off the bottom. At some point you have to believe this market starts trading on the White House. […]
Don’t underestimate tax increases on capital gains. Capital gains at fifteen percent going to 28 percent, this market’s gonna trade down if we see that.
I don’t underestimate the prospect of capital gains tax increases to weigh on the market. But that does not automatically mean that is what’s causing this current market turmoil. To wit…
The 2008 election didn’t cause Lehman Brothers to file for bankruptcy.
The 2008 election didn’t cause AIG to run for cover.
The 2008 election didn’t cause Wachovia to sell itself to Wells Fargo.
The 2008 election didn’t cause Fanny and Freddy to blow up.
The 2008 election didn’t cause housing prices to drop.
The 2008 election didn’t cause oil prices to drop.
The 2008 election didn’t cause credit to suddenly dry up.
The 2008 election didn’t cause markets the world over to crater.
My point: this financial mess has many causes and plenty of blame to go around. And that’s been reflected in the business reporting which has used just about everything but the kitchen sink as an excuse. One minute we’re hearing that the market’s falling because Congress didn’t pass a bailout package…the next we’re hearing that the market’s falling because Congress DID pass a bailout package. Which is it? Both? Neither? Who knows? Apparently the business reporters don’t because they seem to come up with a new reason for the turmoil in the market every week.
Here’s an idea. Call me crazy, call me naive, but, how about sticking to the facts and report those? History will eventually show what caused what.
Inside Cable News 
October 25, 2008 at 6:21 pm
He’s been doing this for a few weeks now.
While in the same shows he questions “democrats” and asks the more legit question of (paraphrasing here): “isn’t there enough blame to go around on both sides?”
Though blaming the “crisis” on Obama’s impending election fits right into the GOP’s recent plans of more divisive politics. So while it’s annoying and speculative, it’s not the least surprising.
October 25, 2008 at 8:00 pm
A video link to the report would have been useful.
Without seeing that, I can say, there is a question mark at the end of that graphic. So it’s not an accusation, it’s a question.
And who is that Cavuto’s interviewing? I’ll be damned… the ultra-liberal Dennis Kucinich, who I’m sure was given plenty of chance to argue against the point.
There’s the difference between FOX & your beloved MS-DNC… they actually allow opposing viewpoints to be heard.
Is it possible having a federal government completely run by liberals could have a negative impact on the market? Absolutely. Especially when that party talks openly about spreading the wealth and raising taxes.
It’s not just the presidential race, either. It’s the Senate & the House that will be controlled overwhelmingly by Dems. Maybe that’s a scary thought for some investors.
It’s a legitimate issue and should be discussed.
October 26, 2008 at 12:04 am
I too don’t think this is so far-fetched. And this has been part of the story for weeks. The US election is a scary think for the financial markets all around the world; and the markets react to the polls as much as any of the other economic indicators.
As for Dennis Kucinich: it’s always interesting watching him on Cavuto’s show. He knows his finance/business/money stuff. He may be ultra liberal, but he doesn’t talk about raising capitol gains and corporate taxes like other Democrats. He actually sounds reasonable, knowledgeable and sensible on Cavuto’s show.
October 26, 2008 at 9:52 am
As expected, I agree with bigred and erljr. But then again I think this would be a legitimate question no matter how the market was moving, and no matter which party was poised to take control.
“What will happen tomorrow,” is the bread and butter of financial forecasting (just like the weather), and so they have to talk about it. If there is legit buzz going around that Democratic leadership could make for bad stocks, why shouldn’t they discuss it? Similarly, if stocks looked like they were going to improve on new leadership, we would expect them to talk about that too.
As has already been said, this wasn’t a commentary, it was a question. A question asked to someone who would argue the “nay” side, thus providing BALANCE to the discussion. I honestly don’t see anything wrong with this.
October 26, 2008 at 12:45 pm
only FNC and its adherents could actually believe investors are worried about putative capital gains taxes. When most people are looking at their retirement plans and wondering if they’re going to have to work until they die, capital gains themselves seem like a pipedream.
October 26, 2008 at 1:18 pm
When it comes to reporting the markets, there is always a lot of speculation, cos very few people really know what moves the markets. You can spot certain trends and moments when a certain story, or more specifically a certain release of data, that moves it for a bit, but all sorts of news, moves it all kinds of ways.
Like it or not, that’s business news.
October 26, 2008 at 2:49 pm
“Here’s an idea. Call me crazy, call me naive, but, how about sticking to the facts and report those? History will eventually show what caused what.”
I agree, now when are we going to get some basic reporting in the MSM that answer the fundamental questions raised in the editorial “Will the last reporter left please turn the lights on”
We have not seen it yet because it does not fit the MSM narrative. We are all being left in the dark so the same policies can and will be repeated.
October 26, 2008 at 3:34 pm
I’d put off doing this because I had other things to do. But I read that article and I saw buzzwords in it and an overall tone which I normally would associate with the right wing movement, even though he’s billed as a “Democrat”. This was a red flag.
So I started looking into Orson Scott Card. I knew he was a science fiction writer but that’s all I knew. Well after reading Wikipedia here…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orson_scott_card
And Conservapedia here…
http://www.conservapedia.com/Orson_Scott_Card
…I have to file Mr. Card’s essay under the heading “Consider the Source”. Though I do say he puts forth the conservative viewpoint very well. But in articles like these you have to have no paper trail to be taken seriously as an honest broker. And Card has a big paper trail…
October 26, 2008 at 3:52 pm
“Punt” Under the above criteria no questions ever raised in NYT, NBC, CBS, or CNN editorials should ever be investigated or reported on. Talk about the mother of all paper trails. The “Editorial” asked questions and reports some obvious facts that are crucial to understanding why we had this whole subprime crisis. (FYI, editorials use opinionated language along with examples and facts). I guess I’m sorry to say I’m not surprised you’re sweeping it under the rug for some (IMO) bogus reasons. You’re not holding anyone’s feet to the fire here!
PS: I expect someone will write a book about this but it won’t get reviewed in the NYT. Charlie Gasperino or Jim Stewart would do a great job with this subject. Too bad we can’t help the MSM get to the bottom of the matter while the public is paying attention. Lost opportunity for some unvarnished truth.
October 26, 2008 at 7:43 pm
The media absolutely has not done its job in explaining the financial crisis. Can the average American explain why the economy is tanking? No. Because the media has been horrible in giving any effort into finding out why the economy is tanking.
They prefer to allow, and even promote, the “blame Bush’s tax cuts” narrative.
There’s a lot of blame to go around with this, but the fact that the Democrats ties to Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac goes totally unreported by the MSM is really disgusting.
October 26, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Under the above criteria no questions ever raised in NYT, NBC, CBS, or CNN editorials should ever be investigated or reported on.
Yup. And I would be a subscriber to such a theory. All Op-Eds in my opinion should be renamed to “Advocacy Editorials”….
October 26, 2008 at 9:14 pm
And the Democrats ties to Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac weren’t totally unreported. I saw reports on CNN for sure and I’ve read reports elsewhere. I’ve also read reports about the Republican lobbying firm that was hired by Fannie or Freddy to lobby Republicans to kill the legislation. Plenty of blame to go around here for this financial mess. Just about the only ones who are blameless are the average joes who did everything right and didn’t take out a risky loan they couldn’t possibly afford.
October 27, 2008 at 12:38 pm
I have a problem with what’s put in the lower thirds because the newschannels are often in public spaces with the volume off.
October 27, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Yes, provacative lower thirds can cause trouble for networks. Everyone has run afoul of them at one point or another…
October 27, 2008 at 4:55 pm
Spud: I can cheerfully report that this afternoon Neil ran the same story with the same graphic but with a “?” attached.
October 28, 2008 at 4:20 pm
[…] 900 points… When will we see cable news segments on the Dow possibly reacting to an Liberal Control of Washington? Just […]
September 12, 2018 at 1:14 am
[…] with Bitcoins Buy American Steroids Online with Bitcoins Buy American Steroids Online with Bitcoins Buy American Steroids Online with Bitcoins Buy American Steroids Online with Bitcoins Buy American Steroids Online with Bitcoins Buy American […]