Stewart vs. Cramer

[TC]

What did everyone think? I don't think I've seen a media outlet so thoroughly chastised on TV since Stewart went on Crossfire. For most of the interview Cramer just didn't get what Stewart was complaining about - I don't think he turned the corner until Stewart used the Carly Simon quote on him.

[strummer8526]

Mar 13, 2009 10:44:35 GMT -5 TC said:

What did everyone think? I don't think I've seen a media outlet so thoroughly chastised on TV since Stewart went on Crossfire. For most of the interview Cramer just didn't get what Stewart was complaining about - I don't think he turned the corner until Stewart used the Carly Simon quote on him.

As usual, I wish Stewart had let the guest talk a little more because I think Cramer would have kept digging a deeper hole. He kept blaming all the CEOs who "lied" to him who he's known for 30 years, and blah blah. But after the clips Stewart showed where Cramer is talking about his own questionable dealings, the finger-pointing was going to get him nowhere. The more Cramer talked, the more out of his league he looked. But even with Stewart occasionally talking too much, it was absolutely impressive. He was ready and had his arguments together for that one.

I think it's about time people stop the ad-hominem "he's a comedian" comeback, b/c he has proven that he'll beat you down on the intellectual side too.

[jgalt]

So the point of the interview was so that Stewert could point fingers at Cramer for pointing fingers at CEOs who lied to him?? Well that is irony right there.

Cramer didnt cause anyone to lose their retirement money. If you watched his show every day and invest all your savings according to him, well then you deserves to lose all that money because you are pretty thick.

I wont get into to who I think caused this mess (**cough** federal gov't **cough**) because that is a huge argument that has been made on this board multiple times, but i can assure you it WASNT CRAMER.

[TC]

Mar 13, 2009 11:16:45 GMT -5 strummer8526 said:

As usual, I wish Stewart had let the guest talk a little more because I think Cramer would have kept digging a deeper hole. He kept blaming all the CEOs who "lied" to him who he's known for 30 years, and blah blah.

I thought he did a fantastic job, Cramer was just not prepared at all, or he misunderstood what Stewart was criticizing from the get-go when they did their first piece on CNBC when Santelli bailed on them.

The unedited versions on thedailyshow.com are even better than what aired - Cramer throws Rick Santelli under the bus in the first segment and the third segment unedited is fantastic because it doesn't cut off the argument that Stewart makes about CNBC/hookers/blow.

[PDRHoya99]

After seeing this blow up in facebook comments last night I had to go watch. As somebody who isn't really a fan of Stewart/Daily Show (Craig Kilborn was way funnier) I may be missing some of the backstory, but why exactly would you have somebody on your show to blatantly attack them like that? Is the financial crisis now solved because Jim Cramer got his comeuppance? Will CNBC stop being a shill for corporate America because John Stewart made a stink about them?

There are tons of people that probably deserve a share of the blame for the current crisis, but I'm missing why this particular interview is such a cultural touchstone for people.

[TC]

Mar 13, 2009 11:58:50 GMT -5 PDRHoya99 said:

After seeing this blow up in facebook comments last night I had to go watch. As somebody who isn't really a fan of Stewart/Daily Show (Craig Kilborn was way funnier) I may be missing some of the backstory, but why exactly would you have somebody on your show to blatantly attack them like that? Is the financial crisis now solved because Jim Cramer got his comeuppance? Will CNBC stop being a shill for corporate America because John Stewart made a stink about them?

Here's the backstory :

- Last week, Rick Santelli was supposed to come on The Daily Show
- In preparation, The Daily Show put together a montage of CNBC making terrible calls and making statements that look ridiculous given the banking situation
- Santelli canceled, NYT financial columnist Joe Nocera came on instead, and The Daily Show rolled the montage that night anyway
- Jim Cramer was part of about 20 seconds of the montage, which went viral, and took exception to it
- Cramer went on about 7 shows complaining about Jon Stewart making fun of him
- Stewart aired the clips of Cramer going on 7 shows complaining about him
- Cramer agrees to do The Daily Show

[PDRHoya99]

Mar 13, 2009 12:09:29 GMT -5 TC said:

Here's the backstory :

- Last week, Rick Santelli was supposed to come on The Daily Show
- In preparation, The Daily Show put together a montage of CNBC making terrible calls and making statements that look ridiculous given the banking situation
- Santelli canceled, NYT financial columnist Joe Nocera came on instead, and The Daily Show rolled the montage that night anyway
- Jim Cramer was part of about 20 seconds of the montage, which went viral, and took exception to it
- Cramer went on about 7 shows complaining about Jon Stewart making fun of him
- Stewart aired the clips of Cramer going on 7 shows complaining about him
- Cramer agrees to do The Daily Show

I guess that's slightly better since Stewart was somewhat provoked. However, I really came away from it with many of the same feelings the author of this slate piece expresses:

How much of his indignation is moral and how much is simply aesthetic? Why is this satirist aroused to his most serious anger by loudmouthed hacks?

Isn't Stewarts indignation just another form of pandering to the disaffected 20 and 30 somethings that are now Editeded off by this mess the same way Cramer's ill-fated stock picks were pandering to them in happier stock market times?

[Boz]

I wouldn't go overboard about Jon Stewart's forensic skills here. Jim Cramer is not exactly what I would call a gigantic mind. He's an entertainer who knows the markets pretty well. That's about it.

When he has a seriously knowledgable and skilled debater on his show, say a Christopher Hitchens type, Stewart comes off as little more than a buffoon...which is, of course, his job.

Also, it's kind of hard to say stop using the "he's a comedian" line when Stewart continues to use it himself all of the time, as in "don't criticize me, I'm just a comedian with a basic cable TV show."

Finally, I haven't believed in the authenticity of a single television fued in.....well, forever. These things are so manufactured, it's ridiculous, and I can virtually guarantee that's the case in this instance as well. (If it wasn't, great thinker or not, there's no way Cramer would have been as polite as he was; he'd have been shouting).

[kchoya]

The sad thing is so many people turn to this show to be informed on the "real" news of the day. Other than the correspondents, this show is crap. Once it started becoming all about the Daily Show, it lost me.

[TC]

Mar 13, 2009 12:27:13 GMT -5 PDRHoya99 said:

Isn't Stewarts indignation just another form of pandering to the disaffected 20 and 30 somethings that are now Editeded off by this mess the same way Cramer's ill-fated stock picks were pandering to them in happier stock market times?

If you watch unedited segment #3, he is talking about his Mother's 401K. I think that's what he's p.i.s.s.ed off and disaffected by.

And as always, I don't agree with Boz. Stewart is a pretty good interviewer. He manages to ask sometimes tough questions in a respectful way - as opposed to Colbert (who will steamroll over people with rapid-fire questions) or O'Reilly (who will yell over people). I think Colbert is smarter, the better comedian, and I enjoy his show more, but he's in no way a better interviewer than Stewart.

And yeah, I think even Jon Stewart is sad that people get their news from him rather than serious journalists, and that's kind of his point - that CNBC doesn't really do "journalism" - and that's a problem. I would never watch CNBC or Cramer for any advice or news about investing, I'd go to the library and read ValueLine or Morningstar.

And Boz, c'mon, you don't believe in any television feuds? I believe in all of them - there's no way those women on The View like each other and I believe everyone feuding with Olbermann or O'Reilly legitimately hates them because they are both jerks.

[HealyHoya]

We all have this base psychological need to force everything that happens in the world into a normal, discernible and somewhat explanatory story arch. We need things to have a definitive beginning, middle and end. We need there to be a protagonist who's flesh and blood (and all the better if he/she can be attractive and well-spoken). We need there to be an antagonist (and all the better if he/she is unattractive, threatening and/or different).

Making these giant, complex issues like the current financial downturn into a story, like primetime TV or major motion pictures, is a natural reaction and one that helps individuals avoid the idea that maybe, just maybe, there's a lot of sh*t going on in the world that's completely random, completely uncontrollable and yet can and will impact us in the very real and often very negative ways.

Jon Stewart was able to make Jim Cramer the antagonist for 10 minutes. That helps with the healing. It helps people laugh a bit or vent a bit. People in Wichita and Columbus can ball up the fist and shake it at their TV, knowing that in some small way a wrong has been righted by The Daily Show.

There is value in this. However, it doesn't change the reality that this wasn't Jim Cramer's fault anymore than it was CNBC's fault (anymore than it was the Bush Admins fault, Congress, the Fed government, state and local governments, financial institutions, the financial media, idiots buying too much house, greedy commission-based loan officers, and so).

IMO.

[Coast2CoastHoya]

... was funnier, went deeper, was more investigative, and was more entertaining on an intellectual level than 95% of what's on all other news networks combined** in a given day. And I agree that one of the things Stewart is so hot under the collar about is exactly the fact that there are so many loudmouth hacks who fail to practice real journalism but are considered journalists anyway.

IMO.


**except PBS

[Boz]

Sorry, TC. You are right. I am pretty sure that everyone who hates Olbermann or O'Reilly really, REALLY hates them.

99% of all other television fueds, yes, are concocted in my opinion.

Or, at the very least, they begin as a relatively minor, one-day criticism or disagreement, then producers get their hands on them and they say "Hey, guys, let's run with this. Think of the RATINGS!!" And the hosts do it.

And to clarify, I think there is a difference between just saying, I don't like that person, and actually engaging in an on-air fued.

[TC]

Mar 13, 2009 13:25:17 GMT -5 Boz said:

Or, at the very least, they begin as a relatively minor, one-day criticism or disagreement, then producers get their hands on them and they say "Hey, guys, let's run with this. Think of the RATINGS!!" And the hosts do it.

In this case I think they were pretty up front that it was ALL about that.

www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=220534&title=intro-brawl-street-get-ready-to

[PDRHoya99]

Mar 13, 2009 12:42:07 GMT -5 TC said:

Mar 13, 2009 12:27:13 GMT -5 PDRHoya99 said:

Isn't Stewarts indignation just another form of pandering to the disaffected 20 and 30 somethings that are now Editeded off by this mess the same way Cramer's ill-fated stock picks were pandering to them in happier stock market times?

If you watch unedited segment #3, he is talking about his Mother's 401K. I think that's what he's p.i.s.s.ed off and disaffected by.

Stewart is 46 years old, which conservatively means his mother is likely in her late 60s. If her 401k is down so significantly that her internationally famous son who has hosted the oscars can't compensate for it, it was probably invested a touch aggressively given her age.

[TC]

What about people who don't have an internationally famous son? Let them eat cake? It's just "pandering" to question whether CNBC should be more watchdog and less lapdog? Come on. You didn't even bother to watch - Stewart talks about his mother in her 70's.

[Boz]

I'd also add - and this is independent of Jon Stewart -- when did we get to the point where someone like Jim Cramer had any more credibility than your average sports tout who comes on TV every Sunday morning before the NFL pre-game shows start?

I know this was part of Stewart's argument, that CNBC shouldn't be running ads like "In Cramer We Trust," but it's a promo for crying out loud. Should I also believe that Extenze works for that "special part of a man's body" just because I saw a commercial telling me so?

No, really. Should I? ;D ;D

[TC]

Mar 13, 2009 14:19:42 GMT -5 Boz said:

I know this was part of Stewart's argument, that CNBC shouldn't be running ads like "In Cramer We Trust," but it's a promo for crying out loud. Should I also believe that Extenze works for that "special part of a man's body" just because I saw a commercial telling me so?

Or that Fox News is "Fair and Balanced"?

Anyway that was another part of Stewart's argument - that a lot of parts of CNBC are no better than infomercials.

[kchoya]

New York media person bashing New York media person, getting the New York and DC media all excited. Wake me when something of substance happens.

[PDRHoya99]

Mar 13, 2009 13:50:23 GMT -5 TC said:

What about people who don't have an internationally famous son? Let them eat cake? It's just "pandering" to question whether CNBC should be more watchdog and less lapdog? Come on. You didn't even bother to watch - Stewart talks about his mother in her 70's.

Sorry I didn't retain every nugget of detail from three 8 minute youtube videos. Yes, there are truly people that are suffering because of the crisis, but I don't think Stewart's indignation comes from their plight. Someone had suggested it was because of how it all affected his mother, I was just pointing out that the average educational consultant/teacher is unlikely to have the kind of scratch in her 401k that would be much more than walking around money to Stewart, so that doesn't seem right either.

Does Stewart make some good points about the role of the press -- definitely. Do I think it makes even the smallest amount of difference -- definitely not. CNBC will continue to promote personalities like Cramer because people like their news spoon fed to them by idiot blowhards. For much the same reason Comedy Central will continue to promote Stewart. They are just two sides of the same coin when it comes to delivering information. Fortunately one is very easy to ignore, as nobody I know watches Jim Cramer (save maybe my father in law). Stewart on the other hand, plays to the hipster 20 something crowd and so I have to see a zillion facebook posts today deifying him for "verbally bitchslapping" Cramer, further legitimizing his fake news show that he'd love to be a real news show, yet he still takes great pains to point out is a fake news show.