This is funny because the clip aired at about 12:10 est. At 12:05 I published the following on RealMoney columnist conversation in response to a post by Bob Marcin about poor TV coverage.
Bob makes a great point about stock market television. Yet despite all its flaws we all watch it anyway (well maybe not all of us but I do).
It is wildly flawed, there are anchors that ask the wrong questions, they sometimes add one plus one and get eleven and when they have smart people on, those folks get talked over and are not given enough time.
So what good is it? Fair question. I watch more than my fair share for two reasons. One it is a much easier way, for me, to get certain types of news. Without the big news being reported (I concede to any comments about bias) I would have to spend time looking for it. For example I have no position in Time Warner (TWX) nor any plans to buy it but hearing the chatter about the AOL stake being sold to Google is worth knowing. I'm glad I don't need to spend time reading about it though.
The other use I have is hearing guests sharing parts of their process. I don't care so much about their stock picks but I am interested in hearing (time permitting) how they came to choose the stocks they are picking.
I'm a big believer in taking in what a lot of other people do and then creating your own process. Some (not all) of the interviews allow for that. To that end I would encourage anyone to do what they need to in order to access CNBC Asia and CNBC Europe. Despite my appearances on the former, the content is far more sophisticated and and the segments last longer which allows for much more detail. Both also devote a lot of time to currencies (almost totally ignored in the US) which I think is quite important.
Its flawed but take from it what you can and is useful to you.