JANUARY 21, 2004 --

CNBC? Not really.

That is to say, I don't really see the CNBC ban on owning stock. Isn't the main thing to guard against cheating? For me, I would prefer a stock-owning CNBCer who would tell us who makes all the expectations that seem often the measure of market performance.

What are those expectations based on? Should the market, as a whole, rise and fall on some figure given us by "analysts" or "experts"?

Until recently, it was my experience that stock investing was another way to lose money. Would CNBC object to owning stock if the shares held were to decline in value? Is there something inherently immoral in holding stocks that rise in value? Is CNBC telling us that it covers an immoral street and that its own people cannot be trusted?

Is the CNBC policy kind of a preemptive act to preclude wrongful conduct? Is it aimed at increasing public confidence in its reports? Is it aimed at impressing New York Attorney General E. Spitzer?

Give me anytime an honest reporter who will keep us informed, including reports on the corporate connivers who seek the "ambitious sacrifice of the many to the
aggrandizement of the few." Honesty is the better policy, not bans on owning stock.