CNBC is accused of being less than objective in assessing whether JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon should resign. In a pointed blog post, Reuters reporter Felix Salmon refers to CNBC producers and hosts as Dimon's "biggest cheerleaders" and criticizes them of not considering the whole story. Titled, "The JP Morgan apologists of CNBC," the post includes a clip from CNBC showing hosts asking leading questions.
Readers may recall that JP Morgan Chase lost a risky trading hedge that could amount to to $20 billion in fines.
Salmon highlights this excerpt from the video as an example of CNBC's tone:
Maria Bartiromo: Alex, to you first. Legal problems aside, JP Morgan remains one of the best, if not the best performing major bank in the world today. You believe the leader of that bank should step down?
Alex Pareene: I think that any time you're looking at the greatest fine in the history of Wall Street regulation, it's really worth asking should this guy stay in his job. In any other industry - I can't think of another industry. If you managed a restaurant, and it got the biggest health department fine in the history of restaurants, no one would say "Yeah, but the restaurant's making a lot of money. There's only a little bit of poison in the food."
The arguments on both sides use several reasoning types we discuss in class: criteria, analogy, dissocation, and others.
- How do you assess the interview? Is CNBC biased in its view?
- How are principles of persuasion used in the arguments? What examples do you see of reasoning types, fallacies, and evidence?