Kass: The Media's Muddled Message

No doubt many of the same commentators who stated the case that investors are "getting used to" the high price of oil, also made some of the following (erroneous) statements over the last few years -- clichés that are used so often that investors run the risk of becoming anesthetized to their possible effects:

• Home prices will never fall (said repeatedly two years ago). Look out above, home prices are falling.
• Don't fight the Fed (said repeatedly over the last several decades). Sometimes, like in the last nine months, it does pay to fight the Fed.
• The cash on the sidelines will provide fuel to a new bull market leg (always said). There is always tons of cash on the sidelines.
• Citigroup (C Quote), at $53/share, is inexpensive at only 12x earnings (said last year repeatedly). Last sale? $26. Res ipsa loquitur.
• Bank stocks and government-sponsored agency stocks have strong dividend support (said last year repeatedly). Bank dividends have been slashed throughout the year -- Fannie Mae (FNM Quote) just cut its dividend this morning.
• The housing and credit crises are over (said frequently recently). The housing depression and the seized-up credit markets remain problematic.
• As night follows day, the financial writedowns will become financial writeups over the course of time (said with regularity recently). As my Grandma Koufax would say, "Dougie, we shall see what we shall see."
• Buy stocks in the long run (always said). Stock markets have historically gone through decade-long periods with no price appreciation.

I often hold to the polar opposite views of some of my best friends, including Sir Larry Kudlow and Jim Cramer, but I think they agree, as William Blake wrote, "Opposition is true friendship."

Yesterday, Joe Kernen, who is generally fair and even keeled to me, launched some rather bitter personal remarks about me and toward short sellers on CNBC's "Squawk Box." (Jim "El Capitan" Cramer defended me.) I will take the high road, but Joe's remarks made it clear that some members of the media believe that contrarian and/or non-bullish thought (no matter how well reasoned) has no (or has only a limited) place on the air. Skepticism is all too often deflected by an ad hominem attack, which is unrelated to the naysayer's actual reasoning and logic.

Indeed, at times, it seems as though many in the media believe that it is the media's political, economic and stock market views, not the content they carry, that should be the focus of what is delivered to viewers. How else to explain the predominance of bullish commentators and the absence of contrarians or skeptics in the media these days and, for that matter, most all days?