You want the truth? You can probably handle the truth!
Maybe it’s just me. I think financial media are entertainment and not a whole lot more.
I know many CNBC and Bloomberg TV devotees point to the insight they believe those two provide as priceless. (Would you pay for it?)
I play and work this market every day. I’ve done so for thirty-plus years. I mean sitting at the pc pre-market through the day in a now broken down uncomfortable executive chair until the close and then some.
So, you say get a life. I say this is my life; way too busy to get a new chair busy.
One of the things I’ve learned over the years of bleeding eyes, a result of intense chart-reading, permanent skin wrinkles from scrunched eyebrows and squinting eyes focusing on red/green digits, is that the daily reads of the financial media are not all that helpful.
Indeed, there are well written in-depth articles where the deep dive was worth the time it took to read. I learned something. I paid the price of admission with my time and the author rewarded me with a nugget or two of knowledge.
If you visit those sites, it is akin to reading the Washington Post and Russia’s Pravda or Izvestia for insight on the same global political topic. You can imagine you’d get a different perspective from each.
I use any number of mainstream online sites for market news and insight: Bloomberg, Seeking Alpha, Motley Fool, Market Watch, Barron’s, Zero Hedge, Benzinga, etc.
I read MarketWatch.com, Barrons.com, ZeroHedge.com, and Briefing.com. I thoroughly enjoy that basic but frustrating clash of attitude and market outlook between MarketWatch (general) bullishness vs. the bearish (always) cynical ZeroHedge.
On a pay-for basis, I prefer Briefing.com. Show me some neutrality coming to the market for the day as Briefing.com does. Businessinsider.com, never; but that’s me.
Reading MarketWatch and ZeroHedge, I’m allowed to divide by two, turn to the East, bark at the moon, take a knee, and then have an opinion. Somewhere between those two extremes lies something that I can, hopefully, latch on to, perhaps trust enough, to act on.
From both those extremes and the other usual suspects, I read filler about how the future’s so bright we need to wear shades to if you don’t have your prepper shelter… kiss your ass goodbye by 5:00pm ET.
Writers don’t work for free unless they’re publishing a manifesto to replace global governments. (No, it’s not ready yet.)
Financial writers are paid to write, fill the space, draw the eyeballs, over and over and over again about where they think AAPL or the SPX price is going to in the future. Every day they present their edited thoughts to draw eyeballs to the lead, the ultimate reward for editor and writer.
My complaint is that I get 95 to 98% filler replaying the backstory in most articles before I get the nugget(s) of new development(s). Frankly, save me the time and just give me a heading/topic/issue that I can continuously check-in with and get my one line update. Or is time no longer money?
I know the rules of journalism, maybe the Chicago Manual of Style 17th Edition, insist that it be done, i.e., add filler as much as you can way, but come on, these folks are paid by the word or salary?
The tower babels on, the blustering babble continues, and I waste time reading what I already know. The bleating goes on.
Well, as I said…. maybe it’s just me.