“But eight point one percent. . . . Uh, that’s what you said, right, Zandi?”
“I said eight. I said eight. Eight point one is worse than I expected.”
“I mean, this is bad, right?”
“There’s nothing redeeming about it. . . . There’s nothing good about it. . . . I don’t see anything redeeming about it at all. . .”
“So why are the futures higher? Any idea why the futures are higher?”
“Uhhhhhhhhhh.”
“Well, there were articles out yesterday that said if it was just a complete blowout. . . . It’s a capitulation, a capitulation. That this is the worst; that was the, that was the talk.”
“Well, you could now say that February was better than December and January!”
“But we haven’t got the revisions yet!”
“It’s a capitulation . . . but when you look at the private sector forecasts that are out . . . things are still gonna be worsening.”
“The worst?”
“It’s very very . . .”
“Tough.”
“But the futures . . .”
That is the sound of the CNBC in the moments following the worst jobs report in the history of jobs reports. Eight people with at least as many advanced degrees among them are assembled onscreen on March 6 in the network’s customary “octobox” grid formation to hold forth on this fresh piece of data, the 8:30 a.m. release of which a timer in the corner has been ticking toward by the hundredths of a second. In this economy, the network’s promotional spots remind viewers at every commercial break, the most valuable asset you have is information. CNBC: Now more than ever. How valuable is it now to be told America is screwed? (Now more than ever?) We learn that in February, 851,000 more Americans have been added to the nation’s out-of-workforce and, worrisomely, two hundred thousand have been jobless since December and January but were simply delayed along the path toward becoming statistics, meaning February’s numbers could climb further. The chief appeal of the octobox—its animated eight-way debates—is somewhat limited when there is such consensus about the consensus. “There’s no way that we could or should put a positive spin on these,” White House economic adviser Christina Romer confirms, smiling weakly, as if to a grandchild who hasn’t quite learned to accept that Daddy isn’t coming home.
Exactly a year before this jobs report, the last of the optimistic forecasters on Wall Street “capitulated,” in Wall Street parlance, to the reality of a deep recession. Sixty-three thousand jobs had been lost in February 2008. Angelo Mozilo, the persimmon-skinned former CEO of Countrywide Financial, the subprime mortgage lender, was being grilled on Capitol Hill about the nine-figure compensation package he got peddling the predatory home loans that were upending neighborhoods across the country. The Dow closed below 12,000 for the first time since November 2006. “Godot,” the theretofore relentlessly bullish economist Edward Yardeni wrote in a research report that day, “has arrived.”
A few days later Bear Stearns collapsed. By the end of the year the most salient remaining arguments against the nationalization of the banking system were practical concerns. A consensus began to emerge about the nation’s economic narrative: a few bulge-bracket banks had bilked the broader economy of trillions of dollars with the phony profit margins they booked by inventing new financial “products” that packaged, traded, and placed evermore complex bets on consumer debt. They said they were ensuring the “efficient allocation of capital,” but they were allocating a suspicious amount of capital to themselves. Wall Street, in short, had royally screwed Main Street.
But rarely will one hear this consensus voiced on the deepest-pocketed journalistic outlet covering all these stories. When the subject of taxpayer-subsidized bonuses comes up, for example, CNBC’s sources on the trading floor will assure you they share the outrage, but “level heads”—CNBC seems to hold levelheadedness in the utmost regard these days—must not succumb to “class warfare.” Class warfare has been the subject of several CNBC segments already this year, not that the network seems to have a clearly defined view of what class warfare is, simply that the market doesn’t like it.

As I type this, CNBC runs in the background....
Let me get this straight, Maureen: your complaint is that CNBC is somehow behind the curve in informing the unwashed as to the economic realities about them while pretending otherwise? As a journalist, an entirely risible "profession", I assumed you would be cheering CNBC's ability to make a buck while spouting crap. But no...you feel the need to hack at CNBC while bewailing the fact that there is now a "depression" among journalists. Oh, heaven forfend!!!!
The pretensions of jounalists generally and CJR in particular are comical. Get over it and find a real job....like spokesgoon for the current administration.
#1 Posted by Steve, CJR on Fri 8 May 2009 at 09:21 AM
I'll never forget CNBC's involvement in the economic crisis. I can still vividly see and remember Jim Cramer's comments on the Today Show. He made me nervous with his comments and I actually almost took his advice to get out of the stock market. I think everyone was vulnerable then and when notable journalist's and experts make statements like Cramer was making, we all listen. They are supposed to know what is going on. Wolverine Movie Leaked
#2 Posted by Roy James, CJR on Fri 8 May 2009 at 10:13 AM
Steve--
It's an desperately small number of people capable of *truly* appreciating fraud as a source of personal enrichment.
You should be proud--most people, for all that they say that their own economic growth is all that matters, still, deep down (and maybe secretly) believe that there are things that matter more than that.
#3 Posted by braak, CJR on Fri 8 May 2009 at 11:44 AM
Senator Dick Durbin, referring to the Congress of the United States, said "Wall Street owns the place." . . . Wall Street, in that same sense, "owns" CNBC too. . .
CNBC represents Conservative America's attempts to continue deceiving mainstream America that they too can be rich (and Republican.) . . . CNBC is simply a propaganda organ selling the Ponzi scheme that is Wall Street.
And - of course - Wall Street actually DOES own the Congress (and Obama's financial advisors) so the scheme will continue unabated and unregulated until the country is divided into gated estates for a handful and the rest of us rioting in the streets.
#4 Posted by Wisconsin Reader, CJR on Fri 8 May 2009 at 11:49 AM
what an enjoyable read. thank you.
#5 Posted by equity_guy, CJR on Fri 8 May 2009 at 12:10 PM
Futures products are "derivatives" and they are highly regulated and transparent. Why do so many "learned" writers lump all derivatives into the same camp? It was specifically credit default swaps, mortgage back securities and other instruments related thereto. It may seem picayune, but the distinction is significant and the number of "journalists" who fail to explain it shows they "investigate" about as well as CNBC "reports."
#6 Posted by Reards, CJR on Fri 8 May 2009 at 12:11 PM
Greetings, braak:
Actually, the number of people capable of truly appreciating fraud as a source of personal enrichment is breathtakingly large: union thugs of any and all stripes, particularly the laughably self-described "educators"; collectivists generally (community organizers); and, of course, the fraudsters in chief: our US Congress (particularly those on the left side of the aisle.
Why folks like yourself seem to focus on the Wall Street types (most of them loyal democrats) is mystifying to me. The fraud is all around you, my friend. Wake up and smell the coffee.
#7 Posted by Steve, CJR on Fri 8 May 2009 at 12:50 PM
It seems the argument is whether we are going to be subjected to the insults of reporters who have forgotten what their there for. Basically, who wants to know Larry's political bent or Rick's rant. Just give me the good stuff. Its just a shame that Bill and Sue, the original Financial News Network reporters are lump in with this bunch of self promoting hacks.
#8 Posted by Lee, CJR on Sat 9 May 2009 at 11:06 AM
Whai is why I watch Bloomberg!
#9 Posted by steve, CJR on Sat 9 May 2009 at 03:11 PM
My observation of CNBC is that they have thier own perception of how things are and will be in the future.
In depth reporting is lacking, there is no, and I do mean NO "outside the box" thinking.
For example, is there any seqment to allow salient questions from main street to ask and for them to respond?
How about questioning why the required due diligence of the Fed and Treasury was not perfomed BEFORE the crisis became one?
I am astonished there have not been any perp walks as yet. I think I overheard Obama saying we have to get over this, don't worry about punishing.
As journalists (sic) they are not. As you relate in the article, we need the Watergate investigation journalists back.
Where have they gone? Laid off so they can't get to that dark side. Isn't it a pity!
#10 Posted by Joe_in_Indiana, CJR on Sat 9 May 2009 at 05:53 PM
Congress, ass and elephant are the frauds here. CNBC et al are the enablers. I'm a very unvarnished kind of guy:
340 billion Bush bailout
800 billion Obama bailout
3.5 trillion Obama budget
17 billion Obama savings priceless
#11 Posted by paul, CJR on Sat 9 May 2009 at 06:21 PM
Cramer's Action Alerts portfolio, from 2002-2008: -13%. That's a LOSS of 13%.
You can't pay your bills by beating the S&P when you lose 13$ of every $100 invested.
And this is a so-called "expert"?
#12 Posted by A trader, CJR on Sat 9 May 2009 at 08:06 PM
Sorry - I'm no fan of Kramer or any of those other financial 'entertainers'. Does anyone remember the days of that guy on PBS on Friday nights that gave stock picks. Louis Reukeiser, I think? He had an entertainer quality to himself as well (though not as far out as Kramer).
Track Text Messages
#13 Posted by Carl, CJR on Mon 18 May 2009 at 10:10 PM
CNBC has become an extension of the Fed and the Treasury via its parent company GE who sits alongside the banksters at the public trough. (the attached from the Hollywood Reporter is an example)
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:xFG4jGz0rkUJ:www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i888016761f9ec824f862a5c265de605c
#14 Posted by Guest, CJR on Sun 7 Jun 2009 at 12:44 PM
As an investment professional since 1972, I usually flip between CNBC and Bloomberg, but I only leave the sound on while tuned in to Bloomberg. The only reason I watch CNBC at all is that I interact all day long with people that watch CNBC and then call me to discuss something that was currently being tossed around the octobox or decibox (?).
There are a number of reasons that I truly dislike CNBC, the first of which is that the "reporters" and anchors simply cannot restrain themselves from interjecting their personal ideology into an interview or discussion. Kudlow is the most obvious, of course, but he's a blowhard buffoon and everyone knows it. Bob Pisani, David Faber and a couple of others are the closest thing to actually knowledgeable reporters the network has, and a pleasant relief from the Joe Kernans and Mark Haineses that are always in view spouting off about socialism and left wing politics, etc. Rick Santarelli is one of the most sophisticated commentators on the network, but no one outside of Wall Street has any idea of what he's talking about. I used to like hearing his views on the markets he covers, but over the last three or four years he has drifted more and more to the spouting of ideology instead of just giving us his take on the bond market, etc.
#15 Posted by Freddy, CJR on Sun 7 Jun 2009 at 12:46 PM
You sadly missed an opportunity in this article to discuss Dylan Ratigan, and the manner in which he quit/got fired, ie, while standing up to the brass and espousing the same points as your article.
#16 Posted by a Mr. Someone, CJR on Sun 7 Jun 2009 at 03:16 PM
CNBC worships at the altar of money. They have been known to idolize billionaires that are in fact defrauding their customers out of billions. Their market acumen is non existent. They have lost a lot of people a lot of money. And they keep repeating "stocks for the long run" mantra which is completely wrong. In summary, never has a journalistic institution been so wrong and so successful at the same time.
#17 Posted by ReturnFreeRsik, CJR on Tue 9 Jun 2009 at 02:03 PM
" .. CNBC represents Conservative America's attempts to continue deceiving mainstream America that they too can be rich (and Republican.) . . . CNBC is simply a propaganda organ selling the Ponzi scheme that is Wall Street."
Yeah, yeah, yeah .. and "The Wall Street Journal" is a tool of GWB and Cheney. Right -- and pigs fly out of MESSIAH's butt.
Reality: at their best, WSJ, Fortune, Forbes, CNBC, et al., know they have to be FRANK, HONEST & DIRECT. And, sometimes, BRUTALLY so.
Because, if they are not, their readers will TEAR THEM APART in seconds. As fast as the Internet.
If that doesn't fit into your worldview framework (e.g., Socialism, Communism) -- that's on you.
Heck, the Commies read the aforementioned for facts -- you think they actually believe any of the Orwellian newspeak that comes out of D.C., London, Moscow or Beijing? No one is that stupid, except in U.S. taxpayer-funded academia.
Cramer? I've never watched a minute. Not into Harvard Law comedy.
CNBC? Becky Quick's a babe, but I use my own sources. Just turn the sound off.
America, your problem looks back at you in the mirror. Suck it up, do your job, adn quit whining. Please.
#18 Posted by I make up my own mind, thank you, CJR on Wed 10 Jun 2009 at 03:55 PM
Is it me, or does David Faber love to hear himself talk? What does he have to prove? Most would agree that he's fairly sharp and understands the markets. But geeeeeez, on his noontime Strategy Session, I would appreciate it if he'd just let his guests finish ONE sentence. These guys (well, most of them) have egos bigger than the heavens. David, would please just zip it and let your guests say what you invited them onto your show for in the first place. We know you're pretty smart. You don't have to prove it every minute! I sometimes wish the house of cards would fall on top of him! That's what it would take to shut him up?
A growingly disgruntled CNBC watcher.
#19 Posted by Larry, CJR on Wed 10 Nov 2010 at 03:02 PM