One of my big objections I have regarding Fin TV content is the soft ball interviews that basically serve as a marketing piece for the companies. Consider the ill fated @CNBC interview of Sam Bankman-Fried one month before he was indicted as an extreme example. Or the non stop interviews with Saylor $MSTR as his company's share price collapsed. Another case in point are the numerous Brian Moynihan ($BAC CEO) interviews this year which revealed nothing substantive or value added - again a free commercial for the money center bank. $BAC, which is also the continued and confident object of affection of the "panelists" (who talk mostly in generalities and platitudes and not analysis), just reported disappointing results and the shares are down by another -$2.20 (and has dropped from a high of $66 to $51). (PS As I have noted I estimate that the bank has about $92 billion of unrealized losses in its securities portfolio (this is rarely discussed in the business media). What has been the value of these interviews? How has the network's principal stakeholders -the viewers - benefitted? Meanwhile after all these interviews the network hasnt even had a discussion of the EPS miss at $BAC. (* attribute this to formulaic and pre determined programming) If anyone at @CNBC or elsewhere think I am being too harsh and ad hominem, please tell me and I would be happy to delete this tweet and apologize. @squawkbox @cnbcfastmoney @cnbchalftime @andrewrsorkin @saraeisen @beckyquick @convertbond @tomkeene @lisaabramowicz1 @annmarie @TheJudgeCNBC @carlquintanilla @SullyCNBC @guyadami @business @pboockvar @convertbond @KeithMcCullough @Hedgeye_HGRO @Hedgeye_HELS @HedgeyeDJ @gnoble79 @guyadami By means of background, we @seabreezelp and others (@hedgeye) have been warning about bank stocks for four months in numerous @thestreetpro columns. See this chart that we published a while back: