There it was in the nytimes. A featured article implying ethics problems at CNBC.
As I generally don't find much to like at CNBC (do they still have that tired Larry Kudlow posing as an economist? <gag>), I eagerly read the article, hoping that at last someone had gotten the goods on CNBC. Alas, it was just a rehash of a big bunch of nothing.
Maria Bartiromo, who owns some shares of Citigroup, did an interview with Sanford I. Weill, Citigroup's CEO. And get this: she actually disclosed that little fact to the audience before the interview.
That's it. That was the essence of the allegation.
Times writer Patrick McGeehan didn't say that she went on to pump up the stock and then sell it the next day.
He didn't say that she went easy on good old Sandy by asking cream puff questions.
No, he didn't say anything like that. He didn't even mention how the interview went or the kinds of questions she asked. He just quoted a whole lot of nobodies to no particular purpose and tried to imply that CNBC was not very forthcoming because some of its on-air personalities didn't reply promptly to some (presumably contentious) email messages.
Oh, puh--leeze.
I'm no great fan of Maria Bartiromo, but--
I'd like to say a word in her behalf:
Her critics...make me laugh.
First of all, McGeehan (presumably well-trained by the other incompetent reporters at the nytimes) omitted a key piece of information that a reader would need in order to evaluate his implication of ethical laxness on the part of Bartiromo or CNBC: did she let her stock ownership influence the interview? By other accounts, she did not; she conducted a hard-hitting session, asking questions that Citigroup CEO Weill would just as soon have avoided.
This is one of the key points that simple-minded media critics (Howard Kurtz comes to mind) tend to leave out of the equation. There is only an ethical problem if Bartiromo allowed her stock ownership to affect the interview, or if she used the interview to try to inflate the price of the stock so she could sell it at a quick profit.
Of course, perhaps the nytimes is trying to divert attention away from its own troubles by raising questions about the integrity of a rival media company. No, it would never do that, would it?
Posted by jt at July 29, 2003 07:36 PM