I loved it when Marc Faber blew CNBC's bubble to hell and gone a month ago...Faber is a gentleman but he can CREAM anyone dumb enough to take him on .. which the commetariat at CNBC seem to do at regular intervals. Faber does not suffer fools very well. CNBC is full of them.

If you want to know why CNBC's ratings are so low...I think you need to look at some of the absolute idiots they have:

1) Larry Kudlow: Has missed every major turn in the economy for the last 10 years. Missed the making of the housing bubble.....missed the popping of the bubble. Missed the call on the recession early in the decade......missed the call on recession we're just coming out of. Why anyone would EVER listen to him is beyond me.

2) Dennis Kneal: What an absolute moron. Worthless.

3) Cramer: Enough said (see #2 above)

4) Michelle Casuso Crabera: Rush Limbaugh in drag.

Bloomberg is catching up to them in the ratings. Bloomberg is much more unbiased.......better interviews........wider range of topics........and no cheerleading. What a refreshing change.

It is their juvenile sound effects every few seconds when a new graphic comes on that makes CNBC impossible to watch. They think the more noise they make and the better they can imitate a video game, the better production values which of course is just silly. They seem to have a teenager pushing the button on the sound effects machine. Professional traders have no use for this utter nonsense. We take the money from those that do watch CNBC.

an endless in your face of insulting, criminal, marxist lies and propaganda read to the unwashed audience by mannish women and effeminate men.

it's a goldman sachs disinformation and public relations firm, and a cramer pump and dump outlet, really.

There are guests on CNBC that make me want to watch until the DAMN Whoosh sound effect constantly after graphics drives me nuts and away to Bloomberg I go. These stupid excutives at CNBC (Crap and Nothing But Crap) that want this ear candy need to work at MTV instead!

Bloomberg is definitely the better option.

I like the news -- just the facts -- but the opinions, policital propaganda, screamers, interrupters can go. There are a few whos statements I like to hear, specifically the one who reports from the NYSE floor, Art Cashin and a few of the traders. These are folks who are relaying facts and/or are speaking from competence. The bulk of the people they have on from funds, capital firms, newsletters, etc. are actually harmful as they have no credibility. Usually an agenda to sell something or get others to take the opposite side of something they want to trade.

Cramer's pumps can create an opportunity to sell a pop on the following day but mostly he is hot air. Kudlow seems to have only one thing to say with is -- all problems can be solved by increasing welfare (transfer payments disguised as "tax cuts") to the already wealthy and to hell with the rest. I can't figure out if he is actually that dumb or if he thinks his personal wealth would benefit from his selling that nonsense. Anyway, when I hear his screaming voice I either hit the mute or off button.

They have had someone from England, I believe, on who seems to be a lot better than the screaming ninnies that are on most of the day. That supports what one person wrote that it is much better in Europe than here.

JRtrader, I think your sentiments are largely shared by others -- even those who keep CNBC on mute at work.

As more competitors use the web to offer quality alternatives, I think CNBC will continue to lose viewers.

How can we even expect, to get good financial advice from people, who have to serve those, who pay their bills and their salaries.

True. Conflicts of interest at their finest.

Andy, it's not that they have a "Republican agenda", it's what their agenda is "du jour". On days they want the market to go down, they trot out all the gloom and doomers. When they want it to go up, they interview all the rah rahs. It's all about churning money. I hold both political parties in contempt. They long ago stopped serving their constituents. It's all about campaign fund-raising for their coffers now. I regularly write to my representatives, but all I ever get back are form letters. Over the last several years I've complained about speculators running up oil, the lack of regulation of the hedge fund industry, and H1B visa abuse by technology corporations. Don't even get me started about technology companies locating their new centers in places with no skilled labor, complaining to Congress that they need more H1B visa workers, or their "stealth layoffs", all the while extending their hands for stimulus money to create more jobs (in India).

I gave up on CNBC because I got tired of turning on every morning and seeing it being a platform for Republicans and their agenda. Hey - elections have consequences, you know? Sure would be nice to see the platform being given to those who are actually in power to explain what they're doing and trying to accomplish rather than the megaphone being constantly overwhelmingly being given to those who are going nothing but trying to block them. There's two sides to every story - it's unfortunate that the CNBC thinks that viewers are overwhelmingly only interested in the Republican side.

Thanks for your thoughts, Andy.

Financial news has been co-opted by the hedge fund industry (and this includes big banks ... Goldman Sachs is really a giant hedge fund). When they let major corporations such as GE buy media, that was the downfall of investigative journalism. Now they are mouthpieces for the corporations. Most of the anchors on CNBC are married to hedge fund managers. "Fast Money" is now "Apple's Fast Money" (and a pump and dump show). Cramer is a shill for SAC Capital and Goldman Sachs. Now that the Supreme Court is letting corporations donate as much as they want to politicians, we can see a further downfall of the American retail investor (a.k.a. "mark"). Did you really think we would have any financial reform or true health care reform?

It's a sad state of affairs.

When CNBC plays music to go to break, those pretty anchors could dance on their desks to drum up some viewers.

IMO, the reason ratings are down is that the investing public has been able to see with their own eyes (over the last couple of years) just how corrupt the whole financial game on Wall Street has become.

It is an entirely rigged game with the CNBC Propaganda machine running non-stop hoping to pull in new suckers desiring to be separated from their money.

Smear in a little Washington DC corruption and the whole situation makes any decent human being sick to their stomach. The whole thing stinks.

And if that were not enough....now that everyone KNOWS corruption exists in Washington & Wall Street, we are again seeing with our own eyes, the slow move back from reform to status quo.

Our entire political system has been whored-out to a whole collection of greedy bastards who could not care less about the general welfare of this Country.

This is the reason no one watches CNBC anymore. We have finally come to realize that CNBC is merely a mouthpiece to the corruption that lies beneath.

It's a very sad situation, we have here.

How does working with liers, thieves and corruption grab you for a long-term investment plan?

Now if I can only figure out how to go long corruption, liars and thieves.

Long-dated out-of-the-money calls?

Then we'd have the easiest trade in the universe!

That sums it up!

cnbc, cramer,kudlow all have contributed to this fck mess, if there is trulu an congressional investigation than the media needs to a piece of the pie. review the following

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeXtCiU2IeA

Thanks for the link, Bill.

mark haines: I cannot listen to the fat ass with crumbs on his face anymore. the only haines bottom is his fat laden cheeks, drooping over his chair as he ponders how smart he is. The other great thing is the 6 screaming heads of nothingness that pop up on the screen to shout about some topic. it illustrates the word cacophony (which should never be used). This segment reminds me of the SNL skit about "point-counterpoint" "Jane, you ignorant slut..." CNBC- crap, not business clips

LOL.

When you mentioned the CNBC playing in the background on mute in some offices it reminded me of a quote I read from a big bond fund manager on The Big Picture:

“Isn’t it funny when you walk into a investment firm, and you see all of the financial advisors watching CNBC — that gives me the same feeling of confidence I would have if I walked into the Mayo-clinic or Sloan Kettering and all the medical doctors were watching General Hospital…”

-Senior portfolio manager, UBS

That is perfectly put, JD. Thanks!

I'm tired of the breathless shilling for the 3 or 4 biggest banks on the street by this channel!!! Bashing the "volcker rule" constantly. Volcker rule = trying to stop GS from borrowing money from the FED for 0% and trading with it!!!

They are supposed to be journalists, but they clearly have an agenda. Thanks, Gman.

Suggest you look at the number of people who have downgraded their cable service as one additional factor. Or maybe also people who have canceled their cable service when they moved in with others (parents, roommates), which would result in a loss of eyeballs.

After downgrading my Comcast cable last year from extended to basic only, I lost all channels above 33, including CNBC.

The benefit is a lower monthly cable bill ($15 vs. $65) and I watch less TV.

Thanks for the ideas, JoJo. And watching less TV is a great thing. My wife and I didn't have cable for years and it was great for our relationship.

But a day without Erin is like a day without sunshine.

LOL

Sorry Damien - i think Vik is right about the YoY timeframe. Their numbers were largely increased by the financial crisis, and this is them coming back down to reality. I also agree they are crap, but it is what uneducated investors like b/c it makes them feel good. BTW - who cares anyway!?

CT,

I agree that the comparisons to the Great Crash are tough. But this has been the excuse for over 6 months now. Does everyone seriously believe CNBC did not lose any viewers after telling Americans to sit tight through the worst crash in a century? And what value does programming have when it's a parade of mutual fund guys coming on to either pump or dump their book.

I think these numbers tell a continuing story that CNBC failed as the Fourth Estate while the economy was imploding.

Damien - agreed. What were their numbers pre-crash? Are they up or down from there. That might be the right question to validate your fundamental analysis.

I will get those ASAP. Thanks for your thoughts.

MSNBC's Keith Olbermann's ratings are down 48 % , another charlatan

This is what happens when uneducated robots get ratings leaks from places like Fox Business.

Did it ever occur to the author that the reason CNBC's ratings were inflated last January was because:

a) The Dow plunged ONE THOUSAND points in a 4 week timespan
(this January - hardly 1/4th of the volatility)

b) The transition from Bush to Obama lifted ALL cable news boats (including CNN and MSNBC, who saw far worse y/y drops).
That would especially impact their primetime programming, which saw good numbers thanks to extended versions of politically-focused "Kudlow & Company" and "CNBC Reports"

Thanks, Vik. First, my brother worked for Publicis. So we have many contacts for Nielsen research.

Second, your point about the market crash have been the same excuses by CNBC for month after month. I addressed those and gave CNBC the benefit of the doubt for half a year. Now, the excuses are just that: excuses.

BTW: CNBC is not known for it's political coverage. If anything, CNN, FOX, and MSNBC would have stolen viewers during the political transition. I don't agree with your theory.

The only people who get so passionate in CNBC's defense are people who work there. At least use your real name and email address. I can see your IP -- and thus your location.

LOL you've GOTTA be kidding me about my IP & location

For starters, I'm from Ontario, Canada
and secondly - how many "months" has CNBC or others been using the market crash excuse?

BTW, since your "brother" works at Publicis, why is this the first time you've released Nielsen ratings for CNBC? Your Nielsen rating tag only reveals one entry (this one)

And I give you full permission to reveal my "email" and "IP address"

If you're going to smear me like that, at least do a good job at it.

(P.S. I added my "real" email address in case you're interested)

Thanks, Vik.

I didn't smear you. I have over 15,000 spam comments blocked on this blog from people who hide their identity and talk shit or whatever they like to do in their free time. So, on first push I consider it a red flag. Sorry if I offended you.

My brother's bio is on this site too. And I said 6 months.

Go back and read my other CNBC posts. I've done a few on their ratings drops. I am on vacation, so this is the quickest I could find:

http://wallstcheatsheet.com/breaking-news/capit...

CNBC is not much more than an infomercial

LOL. On the weekends it literally is infomercials!

Yeah....more people probably watch the infomercials on the weekends, then the business stuff during the week.

It's Nielsen.....and as for BS, I'm not entirely in disagreement but they're the currency for our industry so we have to make do with what we have. Aside from the loss you indicated, the other story is that the daytime audience for CNBC is in all likelihood getting older (a2554 off -37% vs p2 off -24%).

Thanks, vueman. Sorry about the typo. I am on vacation and wrote that at 1AM.

I agree that it's the only currency in the media space. But I think it's time the industry challenged the assumptions of the "measuring" companies and their "panels" of representative viewers. It's not even logical.

What is interesting is that CNBC Europe is the complete opposite. Their reporters and interviewers seem more qualified and they don't shout people down or interrupt them. It is slower paced but wayyy better. And they usually ask questions from both sides. They are unbiased. CNBC Asia is better than CNBC but just okay.

As far as Bloomberg, I think Bloomberg Asia is the best. They have great guests and their interviews tend to be long. On average I'd guess 10-15 minutes. Last week they had Jim Rogers & another guy on for nearly an hour.

Agreed. The American CNBC is more like an entertainment fest.

In my view, CNBC has indeed lost its way. from the arrogant rantings of Joe Kernan to Maria Bartiromo, the show has become one large infomercial.

Maria Bartiromo's consistantly pro-banking elite agenda is quite interesting - NOT. I'm sure she will always have a job in public relations for some billionaire. Too bad she isn't helping investors keep their money.

Lets not forget the Kudlow version of a "Fox and friends" propaganda segment that bestows the virtues of neo-con capitalism......it all stinks.

Sadly, most, but not all of the CNBC broadcasters add little or no value to the interests of their intended audiance. The show needs an overhaul.

"the CNBC broadcasters add little or no value to the interests of their intended audiance. The show needs an overhaul."

Exactly.

CNBC is utter trash. Stopped watching it years ago. If that loudmouth Cramer's actions over BearSterns didn't convince you who they work for, you're a fool for watching!

This is how JOE responds to the public!!!

Maybe you should loosen up mike... Business news can be a little dry no?


Life is short... Don't you have anything more important to worry about?

Here we are getting good natured mail from all over the world and you're
in your
Little house tsk tsk'ing... Have your friends ever tried to help you?

-----Original Message-----
From: mike [mailto:mike2200@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 6:44 AM
To: Squawk
Subject: Squawk Box Email (mike)

Name: mike

Email Address: mike2200@hotmail.com

City, ST: Chicago

Your Question or Comment: Joe Kernen's comments and statements make this
show so unprofessional I turn the TV on to get the news on what is going
on in the business world and I have to listen to his immature,
semi-embarrassing comments. I can only listen for so long and then
change channels can't you get him to be muzzle it a bit?

CNBC is little more than loud. 'PROS' like the Fast Money crew are unique in their ability to talk the 'inside' then make calls that lose. And their love fest with apple is going to make some poor people.

I was wrong on the Fast Money Apple pumping. It worked. Not for me, I know how to use a computer. I'll stick with PCs. So they made some money for someone. Now it looks like they are selling Gartman's news letter. Once again they talk so confidently after the fact, you sometimes wonder did they know what was coming. Not. No one does. Actually, like Cramer, they make a decent contrary indicator.

Do they post track records?

Thanks, Saul. I agree with you. If financial TV doesn't improve your investing skills or net worth, what's the point of watching?

I watch CNBC in the AM for about a half an hour while I'm doing my exercises. The secret is to turn the sound off and ignore the talking faces. The streaming quotes and occasional on-screen headline are as good as any other cable station.

Anybody who uses TV to upgrade their understanding of what's happening financially deserves exactly what they get.

Caveat, you are right. However, CNBC's slogan is "Profit from it" -- obviously, false advertising.

I think the general public has a right to expect good advice on TV IF the station markets itself as such. Most people don't work in finance and are simply looking to stay caught up with their investments. Therefore, I think financial media outlets have a duty to do a better job bringing on more qualified investors rather than mutual fund managers with good PR teams.