I had lunch the other day with several other analysts, strategists, money managers and economists, all of whom shall remain nameless.
All make frequent media appearances.
The conversation drifted over to CNBC. The consensus is everyone at the table wants to do less of it.
The reasons given:
-Producers try to tailor the discussion (“Be more Bullish/Bearish”);
-Too time consuming;
-Law of diminishing returns — the benefits are less and less each appearance;
-Nuance has become a dirty word (“Pick a Letter to describe the economy”);
-Last minute cancellations when “better” names become available;
-Dumbing down of the discourse (One person called it “Foxification”)
I then mention that while I still do a ton of media, I have become Persona Non Grata at CNBC.
There was an issue with some really obnoxious blog comments (they were deleted); I started asking not to be booked with really dumb guests (I also requested no Octobox). I did do Fox a few times (But really, who cares about that? I do all media outlets on behalf of my firm).
With Dylan gone, I dont hear from Fast Money, and with Kudlow, I was told I was “too nuanced“– a phrase that is hardly ever used to describe me. I hadn’t done Squawk Box in years, and I know Joe Kernan ain’t no fan of blogs.
Such is life in the big city . . .
What's been said:
Discussions found on the web: