InvestorsHub Logo
icon url

realfast95

01/11/11 12:58 PM

#67501 RE: ratobranco #67497

I agree, it was a tough gig. But it's rare you get a heated exchange like that. Most of the time the anchor is reading the next subject while the guest talks.
icon url

rru2s

01/11/11 1:39 PM

#67526 RE: ratobranco #67497

Dave Gentry's debate was a draw, not a defeat. Every one of his points was valid and on target and all of his replies sounded professional. About 5 minutes into it CNBC tried to bring in more generalizations about how can one be sure reverse merger China companies actually have stated earnings or own their assets (e.g., mines). Again, more guilt by association.

If Dave comes back again, it would go a whole lot better if some rules were set like:
(1) One-on-one debate - not 3 to 1.
(2) ALL QUESTIONS must be on-topic for the company in question: No allegations or questions about either CNBC or RedChip, that should be a totally different TV interview. Secondly, no generalized statements about the entire China sector, strictly questions or statements about LLEN, nothing else.
(3) RESEARCH BEFOREHAND: If CNBC/Gentry were to send one another their list of 10 company-specific questions and them allow them a week to prepare answers, then better answers would be given.
(4) NON-INTERRUPTED RESPONSES: Allow each question a full 1 minute response, uninterrupted. Also, at the end of all questions and answers, then each party gives a 5 minute wrap-up uninterrupted.

No way would CNBC agree to it, that would short circuit all their dramatic effects and leave a lot of room for awkward questions and accurately driven to-the-point replies.