the exemption is for CNBC, which means NBC does not consider CNBC to be a news agency.

/\
Yeah I'm in Ireland so I will have to make a habit of torrenting his new show. Thats why I was so pissed when he lost the Tonight show cos we have CNBC and they always showed the Tonight show and late night.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

No I think you are right- it's been a very subtle, slow morphing- but the Daily Show has become a "politics show". I don't mind this- because that's what I like, but I agree it has lost a bit of the funny. They seem to always be gunning for the "big moment" like when they gave CNBC a whooping or the great lampoon of Glen Beck. It's "made for Internet" TV- they want their clips to go viral.

Its funny that CNBC are exploiting sex in a similar way to porn vids. I don't think they would honestly do a documentary on porn out of interest alone , Its only because they know people will be like ohh sex and porn stars ill wach that , Evan if its a terable documentary.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Obama, Fox, Bash, CNBC, attack, negative, fair, balanced' to 'Obama, Fox, Bash, CNBC, attack, negative, fair, balanced, fly, flies, persistent flies' - edited by doogle

Barney Frank is right and CNBC is wrong.


If ownership of part of the company doesn't entitle one to any representation in how the company is run, then by what right may ANYONE run the company?

>> ^Edgeman2112:
Where the hell is he? Are you watching the sorts of people that walk in the background?


Congressman Frank is outside the House Financial Services Committee hearing room at 2128 Rayburn House Office Building. These are public hearings, which is just what we need.

"I love how the CNBC anchors seem to want to restrict the power of shareholders to buying and selling stock."

They know who signs their paycheck.

I see Tucker is wearing a tie. Must be he got laid finally.

Course it's a pink tie.. that guy has some issues.




And it that one dude, Zurawik or what ever, is wrong. It is not the purvey of journalism to help citizens make smart choices, thats the purvey of consumer reports.

Journalism is there to be critical on all things and especially to ask the real questions in situations like the one we are in today. We have Freedom of the Press not so they can inform the consumer of what their corporate office wants them to hear, but to critically think and report on our world. Not to tow the political line, but to challenge political lines.

When these journalists and pundits clearly don't even know the purpose of the Press (such as the one guy I'm talking about,) then you know that real journalism is an endangered species, with people like John Stewart one of the few real 'journalists' left.

And Carlson is a retard. Stewart is clearly a democrat but to call him a 'partisan hack' is beyond ludicrous. Does he not remember John Stewart busting Bill Clinton during his administration? You could probably pull up dozens of clips of him hammering that administration over the years.

Last (edit) Stewart wasn't busting CNBC and Cramer, though they were clearly the immediate focus. He was busting on ALL of today's corporate media, particularly any of the 24 hour networks that propose to 'report' on ecconomics.. which AFAIK is.. all of them.

I personally can only hope that this isn't over. I'd be beyond happy to see this situation continue and for Stewart to just keep up his fantastic work.

>> ^cdominus:
^ I'm surprised this would surprise you.


I was surprised because Olbermann at least had been openly mocking Santelli and Cramer for a while, and Rachel had been at least mentioning the growing ire Stewart was directing at Cramer on her show as well.

Usually those two have license to say things the network is otherwise uncomfortable with, and they'd already been openly piling on mockery directed at their CNBC fellows. I guess I just expected more independence from them.

I am a little curious if that's just going to be the NBC family's response to what happened, to just pretend it didn't happen.

If I had their ear, I'd tell them that this was an opportunity for them to do some public self-reflection, and win back some of the credibility they've lost by letting their commentators talk about it freely.

It's not like that'd hurt their ratings.

I was actually a bit surprised at how mild this report was (and shocked that Olbermann didn't mention it at all), until I saw this article from dag, that claims MSNBC anchors were asked not to "incorporate" the interview into their reporting for the day.

Watching this again, this looks like Maddow was working under some very specific rules about what she could and could not say about this event. No clip of the interview, and no direct summary of the content of the interview, appear to be some of the rules. While she does, in the end, communicate a sense of gravity to the event, and that it contained a call for the need for more "watchdoggery" from the business journalists (and I suspect the qualifier about business was mandated), it clearly fails to tackle the meat of what happened in any real way.

Contrast this to CBS's coverage of the interview. The difference is striking.

Then again, they aren't affiliated with CNBC.

"MSNBC: The Son of Fox News."

Hardly possible with people like Chris Mathews and Keith Uberass. Perhaps the poster didn't realize that cNBC and msNBC have the same parent network: NBC. MSNBC has a huch more liberal slant than FOX. This would be evident by viewing the abundant posts here from career-posters supported by the Daily Kos-tic.

This is in response to this and this.

This video has been declared a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof declared by NetRunner.

*dupeof=http://www.videosift.com/video/David-Letterman-Lets-Jon-Stewart-Slam-CNBC-Octomom