The flagship person of CNBC, at one time, was Jim Cramer. He had an exciting and fun to watch show and the ratings reflected this. There is one problem though. If you followed his advice you would under perform a passive strategy and in some cases lose money where a buy and hold strategy would have profited nicely. Once you add in taxes and commissions many were left less than satisfied.
This has lead to some dubbing CNBC as "financial porn". Fun to watch, thrilling, but not good for long term relationships.
CNBC and their ilk are founded on a false premise. That is that short term trading can outperform a passive strategy over the long term. Most actively managed mutual funds do not outperform passive low cost index funds over the long run. If the pros cannot do so its doubtful that an individual can. As I continue to pick on Cramer one would have been better off investing in an S&P Index funds, and spending the dividends (rather than reinvesting) then using Cramer's fund.
All this is not to say that an individual cannot find an occasional value play to make money over the short run. Such things may not be found in the news, and may be contrary to what the press is saying. The IPO of FB, and the predicted demise of Best Buy (both late 2012) are great examples of a wise investor going against the conventional wisdom.
Many feel that the COVID-19 thing is offering some opportunity for individual investors to score big (me included). Having said that the majority of my portfolio is still invested passively but I do have some amount ready to deploy at opportunities as they present themselves. IMHO CNBC is exactly the wrong place to look for advice, but the company may be playing upon these feelings others share to offer a product and increase their sales.
To answer your question, as the comments say, if they can get some dopes to pay money for bad advice, then why not?
Pat yourself on the back in your ability to see through the marketing smoke screen.