Answering questions about CNBC and overall biz coverage

Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz is answering questions online from his readers, and it seems like a majority of them want to talk about CNBC and how the business media covers the stock market.

Here are a few:

New York : Why is what the CNBC crew engages in not considered stock-manipulation? Can you think of an analogous set of behaviors that business reporters in The Post or the Wall Street Journal would be allowed to engage in without attracting attention from the SEC or the U.S. Attorney?

Howard Kurtz: Stock manipulation is something else entirely. That is a crime that involves deliberately trying to push up or push down the price of a stock that you own so you can benefit from the market movement. For a pundit to make a wrong prediction or offer incorrect analysis about a company or stock isn’t remotely in the same category. Besides, CNBC staffers (but not guests from the financial world) are barred by company policy from engaging in short-term trading.

_______________________

Florida chick: CNBC has been tarred and feathered in straw man position. If they had understood more about the pending crash they would have reported it. There were regulators who see inner workings, analysts who have proprietary numbers to crunch and big dogs with millions of their own on the line who didn’t see this coming. How were mere broadcasters supposed to. Cheap shot by Stewart. BTW — you should mention that your own Steve Pearlstein called the high and specifically suggested cash as a haven, pre-crash. He’s one in a million. Wish I’d listened to him, down six figures here.

Howard Kurtz: Pearlstein was ahead on a number of fronts, but I don’t expect financial journalists to call a bottom (or top) to a stock market that even billionaires and professional traders can’t successfully game. I do think it’s their job to report on risk, on regulation, on balance sheets, so that the rest of us can make decisions with eyes wide open.