CNBC News edited out criticism of CNBC News editing out criticism. . . a GME story

I shit you not, this is part of the peak clown world.

So on a live stream, CNBC was accused of editing out earlier footage of criticism towards Citadel Securities.

To which, CNBC edited out that livestream accusation of CNBC. . .

Here’s the video and proof;

Here’s the Transcript;

“CNBC always rolls out the welcome mat for Citadel and its founder Ken Griffin, but rarely, if ever, is any criticism of them ever allowed on CNBC. That is not by accident; that is an editorial decision to only present one side of these key issues facing the country related to our financial markets and the economy. We do not know if that is the reason CNBC posted an edited version of the video of the House Financial Services Committee’s March 17 GameStop hearing or if it is a remarkable coincidence. We do know that, out of more than four hours of the hearing, CNBC deleted a part in the middle of the hearing that included the most direct, pointed criticism of Citadel.

Specifically, I testified that FSOC should review Citadel’s wide-ranging activities in the financial markets to determine if it should be designated and regulated as a systemically significant nonbank. Citadel is a gigantic, interconnected financial firm, but it is non-transparent and unregulated in critical respects, preventing effective oversight and accountability. That’s why it is vital for Main Street Americans and retail investors to know whether or not it is a systemically significant firm, whether it poses a threat to the financial system and economy, and whether it should be regulated more comprehensively. CNBC’s viewers, however, would not know those critical issues were pointedly discussed at the hearing or deleted from the video CNBC posted. CNBC should immediately restore the deleted parts of the video.

-Dennis Kelleher of Better Markets

So, what’s the verdict?

Did CNBC just have a coincidentally corrupt copy of a live stream editing out 10 minutes of direct criticism of CNBC? That specifically edited out two paragraphs of criticism and nothing more?

Probably not, you’d have to be a special kind of stupid to believe that. Probabilistically speaking.

If that happened, the least CNBC could do is admit that there were technically difficulties and specify what was lost. It would also be the due diligence of the Journalistic efforts to represent the truth by getting an uncorrupted copy of the footage and start using that correct version. I mean, this footage is in the public domain for public record, like you can get it pretty easily if you tried. . .

Judging by the fact that the edits are almost 2 whole years old. Yea, it doesn’t seem like they care.

As Dennis Kelleher said “CNBC should immediately restore the deleted parts of the video”. It’s sort of a Journalistic duty to actually present the truth objectively.

Ironically enough, CNBC should also immediately restore the deleted parts of the video in which Dennis Kelleher also said “CNBC should immediately restore the deleted parts of the video”. Hey, might as well restore all of the recursive deletions.

So yea, a few well timed edits that cut out the specific criticism of CNBC? How coincidental. Almost like it’s intentional. . .


CNBC had some edits that took out criticism of Citadel Securities. To which those edits were later criticized. To which CNBC also edited out those criticisms of criticism of editing out criticism towards Citadel Securities.

Does that Mean Citadel Securities is to blame?


Does that make Citadel Securities is not to blame?

Absolutely not.

Could someone reasonable (or reasonably) blame Citadel Securities?

If you wanted to, yea.

Am I asking Leading Questions?


Is CNBC protecting Citadel Securities?

Very likely, there’s more evidence of editing out other talks and criticisms on CNBC. It’s more unlikely that out of all the CNBC footage out there, that they just happened to edit out criticisms of Citadel Securities. There were even talks among CNBC staff saying they can’t talk about Citadel Securities live. I’m referring about CNBC’s Jim Cramer.

Very sus

Jim also mentions “Griffin”. Perhaps “he” and “Griffin” are referenced as the same?

The segment on Wall Street Confidential from the post above;

“. . . See when you’re reporting an (outfit?) like Citadel, the important thing is to not get in trouble. . .” -Jim Cramer

In Closing,

The News is fake, CNBC is bad like the large chunk of them, and this sort of yellow journalism paints a very convincing narrative that the News is bought out by big money interests.

Is the Gonzo Journalism of No Safe Bets (NSB media) providing better journalism than CNBC?

I’d like to think so. But, hey, I’m biased.

*Not Valid Financial, Legal, Life, or Any Advice

Leave a Reply