RSS FEED
MOST SHARED
- U.S. May Wind Up Green With Envy
- Warren Buffett to CNBC: 'I Haven't Bought American Express In Years'
- Japan Third Quarter GDP Jumps; 2010 Growth May Slow
- Analysis: APEC Nations Back Face-Saving Climate Plan
- For Investors, The New Green Looks To Be White
- Dipping Into Green Investing
- Sustainability Indices Sprouting Up
- EADS Cautious on Full-Year Forecast after Earnings Dip
- Stronger Yuan Needed for Global Rebalancing: IMF Chief
- Taking a Page from Obama's Asia Agenda in Investing
- Warren Buffett to CNBC: 'I Haven't Bought American Express In Years'
- CNBC Video: Warren Buffett & Bill Gates - Keeping American Great
- Lightning Round: CVS Caremark, Devon Energy, Tyson Foods and More
- Lightning Round OT: Ford, NewAlliance Bancshares and More
- Why You Should Speculate on Stocks
- Next Week’s Top IPO
- U.S. Stocks Rally for the Second Straight Week
- Cramer: 5 Earnings Reports to Watch Next Week
- Your First Move For Monday November 16th
- Web Extra: Where Will The Next Bull Come From?
Text Size 
One of the powerful things about our Web site is our video. We have lots of it. And for the most part it is cutting edge, newsy, and relevant (something a lot of our competition can't really claim).
But our video also gives me a lot of agita.
You see, as a general rule we take all the interviews, packages, and roundtable discussions you see on CNBC air and routinely put them onto our Web site. We also do some original video and some "web extra" video. It's great having all that material. The problems come when somebody wants us to take a video down or go back and edit something out.
That's a serious issue. Publishing something onto a news Web site, in my view, is the same as publishing a newspaper article or broadcasting a television news program. You don't go back and "revise" it or make it disappear. That's a creepy, almost Big Brother kind of thing.
Yet we get requests to do just that (often by fellow journalists, which I find a little disturbing). The reasons range from the serious to the trivial. Somebody made a factual misstatement ... that's serious. But there are some who want videos down because they don't feel they came off too well or they said something they shouldn't have. Once someone wanted a piece down because they had a "bad hair" day (not at CNBC ... in my previous life).
Of course if somebody on air said something factually wrong about a situation or another entity, the video should come down. It doesn't do readers any good to have bad information on the site.
But pulling video for the rest of the reasons? In some cases it could be viewed as a retraction of sorts. In others, just revisionist. Either way I resist it. Strongly.
But sometimes I wonder if it is worth the agita. Can a few of you readers let me know?
Data is a real-time snapshot *Data is delayed at least 15 minutes