In CNBC's case it's the hiring of Stanley Sporkin, a former federal judge, former CIA general counsel and former SEC enforcement director along with computer security firms Symantec Corp. (NASDAQ: SYMC) and KSR Inc.'s Neohapsis.
CNBC obviously would like the public to forget how badly it botched "The Million Dollar Portfolio Challenge." BusinessWeek uncovered evidence of cheating that was patently obvious as contestants took advantage of a software flaw. This promotion helped push CNBC.com to become one of the top sites for business news.
But the cable channel is pressing on with the promotion. The company was supposed to declare a winner on July 8, but has vowed not to do so until the investigations are complete. CNBC's problems may not end there.
BusinessWeek reported that finalist Joe Dondero, who didn't take advantage of the software flaw, has been accused of manipulating trading in thinly traded equities in the real stock market to enhance his performance in the contest. He also has a track record of getting in hot water with regulators, including the NASD, the magazine said.
CNBC's attempt to sweep this fiasco under the rug is unfortunate. The channel did the right thing, though, by hiring outside consultants to investigate what happened and hopefully will learn how to avoid future mishaps like this in the future.
At this point, the network should follow the lead of my former employer TheStreet.com, which scrapped a similar promotion after cheating was discovered. These contests are bad ideas anyway.
The last thing investors need is encouragement to chase short-term profits
Will Rich Ross really have a positive impact on Disney's movie operations?
Consumers sick of recession, may spend extra on holidays
Corrections, seasonality and Santa Claus
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
6-18-2007 @ 2:40PM
ray price said...
I'm glad it became an embarassment, because as a long-time regular viewer I've found it an annoyance and one more example of what has sadly seemed a gradual process of both a) trivialization, and b) edging in the direction of Jumpin' Jim Kramer-style shout-show antics, which are why I never watch his offensive TV circus. I liked CNBC the way it was; I still sort of like it; I'd like to see it once again like it was. The CNBC regulars are good, solid people; please let them go back to acting like good solid people.
ray price
6-23-2007 @ 9:37AM
Jim said...
Consider this: If there's a cheating problem with just one TV show stock contest, imagine what the level of cheating is like in the market itself. I submit that with computers, guile and greed, the amount of cheating must be far greater than anyone acknowledges. But the big cheats know what the mob has always known, still a little over a long period of time. When you steal a lot at once, it's easier to get caught. CNBC has done investors a great service by reminding us that it's not just the Fed and Congress we need to worry about.
7-12-2007 @ 8:47PM
Shirley Bender said...
I dislike the way CNBC turned this contest, after it ended, into a testament to their "integrity" and legal smarts and something extremely boring.
It was intended to be, and was for a long time, a rip-roaring old-fashioned contest meant to entertain and challenge one and all. It was a circus act you could join.
I can't believe all the silly, pseudo-analytical comments about the cheating techniques, etc. Get a life, who cares! A contest is supposed to be competitive and fun. If it's not, move on. I don't care about all the dumbo reasons it went wrong. It had nothing to do with the real world any way. It was a CONTEST, not an essay on the SEC and the law and computers.
The real idiots are the CNBC tech people who had such lousy software. I don't blame the cheaters for taking advantage of a defect.