RSS FEED
|
CNBC'S MOST SHARED
- Apartment Vacancy Rate Hits 22-Year High
- Investing in Tech Now
- What You'll See On My NASCAR Documentary Tonight
- Warren Buffett's Complete Sun Valley CNBC Interview - Transcript and Video
- Warren Buffett Tells CNBC Consumer Sales Remain "Very, Very Soft"
- Warren Buffett: Economy Needs Another Dose of Viagra
- Software Giants Rush to Cash In on Carbon-Trading
- Preparing for Retirement
- Cramer?s Outrage
- Playing by Different Rules
- Eric Schmidt + Larry Page on Revolutionizing Computing
- Was Chattem's Quarter Good Enough?
- Warren Buffett's Complete Sun Valley CNBC Interview - Transcript and Video
- Lightning Round: Delta, Best Buy, Sunoco and More
- Lightning Round OT: Chevron, Joy Global and More
- Cramer: SEC Needs Pay Incentives
- Sell Block: Insana Too Bullish?
- Cramer: What to Expect This Earnings Season
- Your First Move For Friday July 10th
- Web Extra: Real Estate Reality
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?





