There's a familiar joke about a guy who walks into a doctor's office complaining about shoulder pain. The fellow with the shoulder pain awkwardly wraps his arm around his neck, and says to the doctor, "hey doctor, it hurts when I go like this." To which the doctor replies, "ok, stop going like this, then."
I feel the same about folks who constantly kvetch about the poor quality of CNBC, of whom Zero Hedge is the worst culprit. If it's so bad, stop watching it. Move on with your life. I mean, really. Change the channel to Spike and waste a day or two watching Unbeatable Banzuke. Or better yet, turn the TV off and go for a walk. No one is forcing you to watch CNBC. Every comment you make about CNBC proves that you are watching its programming, which, for CNBC, means that the programming is a success. The ratings don't distinguish between those who love the show and those screaming at the TV.
Yesterday, Zero Hedge posted an article about how much CNBC's ratings were down year over year by 37%. Really? Were the weather channel's ratings down 80% a year after Katrina hit? Zero Hedge is capable of insightful reporting and detailed analysis, but this is Zero Hedge at its sophomoric best. CNBC's influence may indeed be declining or going through the roof, but this stat is irrelevant.
Zero Hedge's obsession would all be slightly more understandable if CNBC were the only financial news network, but it's not. Most basic cable networks provide Fox Business News and Bloomberg, as well. And the true indictment of those networks is the complete lack of vitriol from the blogosphere, because nobody's watching them long enough to get annoyed by them.
No, I'm not a shill for CNBC. I probably watch fifty hours of the station a year. I think Mark Haines and Erin Burnett are pleasant. I like Mark Faber. Since Ratigan and Macke left, nothing on after 9 am mountain time is watchable. So I don't watch it. Simple as that.
