Blah, Blah, Blah

Bill Griffith of CNBC added a few minutes ago:

It’s not so much about the news, its the market’s reaction to the news.

Can someone translate that gibberish for me? Is he really saying:

I have no clue. I am paid to talk. I must say something. What I say is not important.

A few years back I walked the floors of CNBC’s studios during a broadcast day. In some ways it reminded me of the movie the “Truman Show”: a constructed reality, a soap opera so to speak. Except instead of it being one person (Jim Carrey’s character in the “Truman Show”) who doesn’t know the reality is fake, CNBC’s constructed reality is designed to fool an entire audience.

10 thoughts on “Blah, Blah, Blah

  1. What do you like to watch/listen to during the day? I have CNBC on XM quite a bit, but I often wonder why.

  2. CNBC is interesting for some insights but imo time is better spent reviewing specialized sources than listen their gibberish. Yea, it’s a soap opera channel for investors. 🙂

  3. Speaking of CNBC’s gibberish, I’m surprised John Stewart didn’t add a clip or two of Larry Kudlow’s “goldilocks economy” comment that he repeated a dozen times each night for 52 consecutive weeks last year.

  4. They also had a segment yesterday in Australia with the heading “Market Trendless” i was a second too late on capturing it on my phone for you, thought you would love that one.

  5. Am I the only one who thinks CNBC does not spend anywhere near enough time investigating the GE collapse??

    I mean the GE Capital disaster is as bad as AIG and worse than Bank of America and Citi!

    GE will be a HUGE bailout for the U.S. taxpayers(50*1)leverage
    and CDS insurance that is to the moon!!

    Can you say huge bailout that will dwarf AIG!!


  6. One of the only two stocks I own had a news blurb that it was mentioned last night on Cramer’s “Am I Diversified” Mad Money segment, so I just had to pull up the video and watch out of morbid curiosity. But what I heard is spot on this thread as Cramer and a caller get mushy over your favorite CNBC talking head Suzy Orman:) All quotes below verbatim:

    Caller: “You and Suzy Orman are the best financial advisers.”

    Cramer: “Suzy’s fabulous, she’s just dynamite. She’s made a lot of people fell more calm to do the right thing. She’s been very careful to say things aren’t great.”

    That was it, great stuff.


    “The medium is the message” is a phrase coined by Marshall McLuhan meaning that the form of a medium embeds itself in the message, creating a symbiotic relationship by which the medium influences how the message is perceived. The phrase was introduced in his most widely known book, Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man, published in 1964.[1] McLuhan proposes that media themselves, not the content they carry, should be the focus of study; he said that a medium affects the society in which it plays a role not only by the content delivered over the medium, but by the characteristics of the medium itself.

    Hence in Understanding Media, McLuhan describes the “content” of a medium as a juicy piece of meat carried by the burglar to distract the watchdog of the mind. [2] This means that people tend to focus on the obvious, which is the content, to provide us valuable information, but in the process, we largely miss the structural changes in our affairs that are introduced subtly, or over long periods of time.[3] As the society’s values, norms and ways of doing things change because of the technology, it is then we realize the social implications of the medium. We sometimes call these effects “unintended consequences”, although “unanticipated consequences” is more accurate. [3] The “unanticipated consequences” work silently to influence the way in which we interact with one another, and with our society at large.[3] These range from cultural or religious issues and historical precedents, through interplay with existing conditions, to the secondary or tertiary effects in a cascade of interactions [3] that we are not aware of.

    More controversially, he postulated that specific content might have little effect on society — in other words, it did not matter if television broadcasts children’s shows or violent programming, to give one example — the effect of television on society would be identical, and profound. He noted that all media have characteristics that engage the viewer in different ways; for instance, a passage in a book could be reread at will, but a movie had to be screened again in its entirety to study any individual part of it. So the medium through which a person encounters a particular piece of content would have an effect on the individual’s understanding of it.

    McLuhan also claimed in Understanding Media that different media invite different degrees of participation on the part of a person who chooses to consume a medium. Some media, like the movies, enhance one single sense, in this case vision, in such a manner that a person does not need to exert much effort in filling in the details of a movie image. McLuhan contrasted this with TV, which he claimed requires more effort on the part of viewer to determine meaning, and comics, which due to their minimal presentation of visual detail require a high degree of effort to fill in details that the cartoonist may have intended to portray. A movie is thus said by McLuhan to be “hot”, intensifying one single sense “high definition”, demanding a viewer’s attention, and a comic book to be “cool” and “low definition”, requiring much more conscious participation by the reader to extract value.[4] This concentration on the medium itself, and how it conveys information — rather than on the specific content of the information — is the focal point of “the medium is the message”.

    He pointed to the light bulb as a clear demonstration of the concept of “the medium is the message”. A light bulb does not have content in the way that a newspaper has articles or a television has programs, yet it is a medium that has a social effect; that is, a light bulb enables people to create spaces during nighttime that would otherwise be enveloped by darkness. He describes the light bulb as a medium without any content. McLuhan states that “a light bulb creates an environment by its mere presence.”[5] Likewise, the message of a newscast about a heinous crime may be less about the individual news story itself — the content — and more about the change in public attitude towards crime that the newscast engenders by the fact that such crimes are in effect being brought into the home to watch over dinner.[3]

    McLuhan frequently punned on the word “message” changing it to “mass age”, “mess age”, and “massage”; a later book, The Medium is the Massage by McLuhan and Quentin Fiore,[6] was originally to be titled The Medium is the Message, but McLuhan preferred the new title which is said to have been a printing error.

Comments are closed.