Fox Business Network - ARI Weekly appearance

[softwareNerd]

The new Fox Business Network (not available on cable everywhere yet) will feature a weekly (Wednesday) interview of Dr. Yaron Brook. Usually, it will be slotted in sometime between 3pm and 4pm on Wednesdays, but it could appear any time between 2pm and 5pm.

[Mammon]

Yaroon Brook used to come on CNBC, an actual respectable network. I think this is going to hurt the ARI more then help it.

Edited December 21, 2007 by Mammon

[Atlas51184]

Why is Fox Business Network not respectable? I've only watched it a little, but it seemed like exactly the same thing as CNBC, just different faces.

[TheEgoist]

Fox Business is not FOX News. And even if it was, I don't see how CNBC is more respectable.

[softwareNerd]

Fox Business News is a very new network, but -- via Murdoch -- is connected to two respected names in financial journalism: The Wall Street Journal and Barrons. So, being on FBN weekly is a great step. In terms of quality, FBN itself is no worse than CNBC.

Edited December 22, 2007 by softwareNerd

[Mammon]

It's not respectable because News Corp touched it. They take a huge preverbial shit on everything they touch.

[adrock3215]

In terms of quality, FBN itself is no worse than CNBC.

Had to interject here to point out that you are wrong. I am glad that he is going to be appearing weekly, but let's not kid ourselves here: FBN is horrendous. Saw it one day and they were covering MLB games, the world's most expensive car, etc. Also, screen does not show any useful data. No world indices, commodities, currencies, or indices smaller than S&P, DJ, NDQ. The pre-opening information is bare minimum. Ticker during the day that ticks off various trades is useless compared to CNBC's.

Moreover, when they cover important events like Fed Rate decisions, FBN dumbs down the decision by avoiding the use of financial terms, and as a consequence they are not able to point out the effects of the decision on various world markets, such as currencies, commodities, stock, bond, futures, and options markets, etc. CNBC does a much better job of this. They actually use real financial terms (basis points, bollinger bands, etc) where FBN will substitute something else. Steve Liesman (Keynesian type economist) and Rick Santelli (a free market advocate former trader who reports from Chicago Board of Trade and quotes from and mentions Ayn Rand frequently) are informative and entertaining, and always have very good arguments and dialogues.

I think FBN is geared more toward the "everyday guy" who may have a few thousand dollars in his 401k that he checks up on every few months or so. CNBC is aimed more at the 'Wall Street' world.

Anyway. the point is moot if you can get Bloomberg TV. I would advise watching that at all times, as it is better than both FBN and CNBC.

[Mammon]

Had to interject here to point out that you are wrong. I am glad that he is going to be appearing weekly, but let's not kid ourselves here: FBN is horrendous. Saw it one day and they were covering MLB games, the world's most expensive car, etc. Also, screen does not show any useful data. No world indices, commodities, currencies, or indices smaller than S&P, DJ, NDQ. The pre-opening information is bare minimum. Ticker during the day that ticks off various trades is useless compared to CNBC's.

Moreover, when they cover important events like Fed Rate decisions, FBN dumbs down the decision by avoiding the use of financial terms, and as a consequence they are not able to point out the effects of the decision on various world markets, such as currencies, commodities, stock, bond, futures, and options markets, etc. CNBC does a much better job of this. They actually use real financial terms (basis points, bollinger bands, etc) where FBN will substitute something else. Steve Liesman (Keynesian type economist) and Rick Santelli (a free market advocate former trader who reports from Chicago Board of Trade and quotes from and mentions Ayn Rand frequently) are informative and entertaining, and always have very good arguments and dialogues.

I think FBN is geared more toward the "everyday guy" who may have a few thousand dollars in his 401k that he checks up on every few months or so. CNBC is aimed more at the 'Wall Street' world.

Anyway. the point is moot if you can get Bloomberg TV. I would advise watching that at all times, as it is better than both FBN and CNBC.

I haven't seen FBN yet, but everything you described sounds exactly like everything I expected because it's exactly everything they do on their regular business shows on the regular network. It's worthless. I'm a business major, and it's appalling. I think they just threw some people together and said "Show people in business suits and talk about money and show dollar signs everywhere! That will work"

I think Fox News and almost everything Fox does is geared to Average Joe Retard American. This is going to hurt the ARI more then anything.

[John McVey]

I think Fox News and almost everything Fox does is geared to Average Joe Retard American.

I'm not American yet I know very well how offensive that is - and that is applicable to almost any Western country. The average man is not retarded.

I don't know about FBN vs CNBC, but as to TV-watching preferences and Fox in general, don't confuse what may be a mere Hobson's choice with actively being quite positive about the fare offered.

JJM

[bigwig]

Since average Joe is more likely to not have Objectivist-like thoughts than the people who watch CNBC, then it may actually do more good.

[Mammon]

Since average Joe is more likely to not have Objectivist-like thoughts than the people who watch CNBC, then it may actually do more good.

Wait, what?

[Mammon]

I'm not American yet I know very well how offensive that is - and that is applicable to almost any Western country. The average man is not retarded.

I wasn't saying the average American was retarded. Say we have two groups "Americans", and "stupid Americans", the averages of the stupid American is the type of person who would watch Fox News and take it all seriously, and usually agree with it (since Fox likes to tell you what to think about what it reports, or doesn't).

[John McVey]

I wasn't saying the average American was retarded.

Right. You need to be a bit clearer with noun pile-ups, particularly when including slurs in them.

JJM

[A.West]

As an investment professional who has worked in global equities research for 16 years, I think watching any investment TV channel too much is counterproductive. It was mentioned that CNBC uses "real" financial terms like "Bollinger bands" while Fox Business uses less sophisticated terms. Investment jargon is actually one of my pet peeves, because I often find that investment promoters/salesmen like to use what I consider Wall St. Jargon to make themselves look more sophisticated than they are - crap like "this stock's RSI is up over 75 so I'd put in a bid" is just a floating abstraction to most people, and is usually worthless from an investment/analytical perspctive. But it allows people to simulate intelligent conversation about a multitude of topics about which they have only a faint understanding.

I have seen a little bit of Fox Business news - one show looks like it invites various gasbags to opine freely over various stocks while drinking beers at a Wall Street Bar. Seems like an Oprah Winfrey show for wealthy retired guys. On the other hand, I have seen some decent business shows on Fox, and am glad they feature serious Ayn Rand fan Jonathan Hoenig to discuss investment topics on "Cashin In". He has frequently offers radically rational views on a wide range of business/political topics.

My guess is that since CNBC targets the retail brokerage audience (including stockbrokers who want to sound tied in to market action), Fox Business may be seeking to penetrate a less "sophisticated" but broader personal finance audience not necessarily looking to trade stocks every day, but might want wider advice about home buying, asset allocation, savings strategies, small business, etc.

Unfortunately, all business channels appear to be quite light on real fact-finding and reporting. It's mostly a combination of the easy to get reporting of short term price changes, which has little lasting value, and short, shallow discussions with representatives of companies and investment firms, which they consider to be more or less free PR opportunities.

[KendallJ]

This is going to hurt the ARI more then anything.

You've said this twice now, and this is the central premise to your argument. How exactly will this hurt ARI?

I think Fox News and almost everything Fox does is geared to Average Joe Retard American. This is going to hurt the ARI more then anything.

I wasn't saying the average American was retarded. Say we have two groups "Americans", and "stupid Americans", the averages of the stupid American is the type of person who would watch Fox News and take it all seriously, and usually agree with it (since Fox likes to tell you what to think about what it reports, or doesn't).

Well that's about as circular as it gets. Fox News is geared toward people who would take Fox News seriously. Duh, so is every other news channel. I'm sure you must mean something else Justin, maybe you're just having a little trouble articulating it. This sounds a lot like the argument to not shop at Wal-Mart because it's where the "white trash" goes to shop.

All news channels "tell you" what to think. It's called analysis and advocacy, and it's a good thing. It's the channels that talk about "objectivity" and "lack of bias" that I don't trust, because they're trying to pull one over on you.

[adrock3215]

"How many people are watching the new Fox Business Network?

About 6,300, on average, on any given weekday, according to early estimates compiled by Nielsen Media Research. By contrast, Fox Business’s chief competitor, CNBC, attracted about 283,000 viewers each weekday from Oct. 15 through Dec. 14, the first two months that Fox Business was on the air, according to Nielsen’s calculations.

While Nielsen, at the network’s request, has measured the viewership of Fox Business since its premiere, Nielsen is not permitted to release or even confirm those figures publicly. That is because they are so low as to fall below Nielsen’s minimum standards for reporting, said Gary Holmes, a Nielsen spokesman"

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/04/business...amp;oref=slogin

[Mammon]

You've said this twice now, and this is the central premise to your argument. How exactly will this hurt ARI?

Because it's going to make the ARI and everything they stand for be lumped in with the whole Fox News shamelessly promoting neo-con Republicans thing. That's going to turn off people who would be interested in Ayn Rand. It's not going to help because the target audience here are people who don't care for Rand unless it's to cherry-pick Objectivism (like they do with Christianity) and mix it in with all the other bad ideas they have.

I guess I see it as second-handing? Like, pissing all over a good thing? Plus, the people who run Fox News are very dishonest people. Watch "OutFoxed" it goes into this in great detail.

Well that's about as circular as it gets. Fox News is geared toward people who would take Fox News seriously. Duh, so is every other news channel. I'm sure you must mean something else Justin, maybe you're just having a little trouble articulating it. This sounds a lot like the argument to not shop at Wal-Mart because it's where the "white trash" goes to shop.

Honestly, I still get what I need from Wal-Mart but the people there do bother me, it lessens my enjoyment of life to an extent. Just like the trash Fox News puts up everyday. I can seem the doing something like "Why the ARI thinks Lindsey Lohan getting out of jail will affect your weightloss progam and stock options and next -- JESUS HATES GAY PEOPLE!"

They will take something great and trash it. Watch.

All news channels "tell you" what to think. It's called analysis and advocacy, and it's a good thing. It's the channels that talk about "objectivity" and "lack of bias" that I don't trust, because they're trying to pull one over on you.

Seriously? Wouldn't it be nice to get some news without a spin to it? Without a agenda. I thought Objectivism was about looking at the world with objectivity?

[DarkWaters]

Because it's going to make the ARI and everything they stand for be lumped in with the whole Fox News shamelessly promoting neo-con Republicans thing.

Speaking as someone who really dislikes Sean Hannity, Fox Business Network seems to have a different reputation than Fox News. Have you seen any of Dr. Brook's weekly appearances? If so, what in particular on the program did you find objectionable that you fear ARI might get associated with?

[FeatherFall]

I'll support that motion. I don't have access to FBN and would like to know how Dr. Brook is doing.

[adrock3215]

You can see Dr. Brook in these clips:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=cml7JLfGxkY

http://youtube.com/watch?v=QLUXT7kL8NM

In my estimation he did well. But I uphold my claim that as a business network FBN is garbage. My opinion of Fox News is withheld because it does not relate to this discussion.

[Mammon]

I love how the ticker on Fox News is filled with nothing but popular retail companies. It's like McDonalds, Lowes, Starbucks, Stables! I think they drive through a shopping outlet, write down the stores they see and then find some information on them and say "Hay guyz, we canz did is cuver teh ecomoneys!"

But, poor Yaron. I think he held up okay, but he seemed to have trouble summing up his point though. Look how the guy at the end of the second video is trying to get Yaron to say something good about Bush. I think I'm going to make him an anti-Stupid hat to where when he goes on that show so he doesn't catch The Dumb.

But, DarkWaters, this kind of what I'm talking about it. They are basically using the ARI to push their own (neocon) agenda. Objectivism is all great when it's used to defend companies they like and certain Republican interests, but when it's also revealed to be an atheistic philosophy then it's "boo bad, atheists and secular progressives are ruining America!"