Stewart vs. Cramer

[TC]

Mar 16, 2009 12:58:09 GMT -5 kchoya said:

So what do you propose? Have the government issue checks for what they lost? As commented just below - if you're big into stocks at that age, and you took a big hit over the last year, that's your own fault.

How about CNBC spend as much time making that point as they do spewing about how <fill in the blank> beat the forecast by $.01?

[jgalt]

Mar 16, 2009 12:16:05 GMT -5 Cambridge said:

Mar 15, 2009 12:10:22 GMT -5 jgalt said:

It isnt. They are both businesses. Their aim is to make money. And there is nothing wrong with this. They, CNBC nor Cramer, are some Ministry of Truth. They have no obligation to run around wall street exposing injustice. They are a source of information, geared primarily at financial professionals (at least in the beginning). They dont have some mandate from a higher body to find truth and justice.

To ask them to be muckrakers is ridiculous. They are a business, period. They did there job, which is to gain viewers to sell advertising. To expect anything more is just presumptuous.

And Ill say it again- neither CNBC NOR CRAMER HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE WHAT HAPPENED TO THE ECONOMY.

Stewart is Editeded that Cramer is looking for scapgoat, but that is EXACTLY what stewart is doing. Cramer didnt invest anyones money. He didnt decide that Fanny Mae should be buying billions of dollars in Mortgage Backed Securities. He didnt decide that AIG should start insuring all these ridiculous naked short sells. He had nothing to do with what is the real failure of the economy.

And here I though journalism was a profession not a business...of course they said the same thing about the law and medicine, and we all see where that has gone.

At least historically, and philosophically, there has been a distinction between a journalist and a hawker. One was beholden to ethical obligations that went beyond the sale of product. However, while I do doubt whether that has ever really been the case; I am certain that it is not the case today.

I guess this i just a philosophical difference between the two of us (and between me and most of the board). I dont see anything wrong with "journalism" being for profit. If there was no profit in it, then no journalism would exist. Why do you think muckraking became so popular around the turn of the century? because it sells news papers. Why is the national enquirer in better financial health than NYT? because they have stories that excite people (and i am not forgetting the fact the national enquirer is a gossip rag). Why do people watch John Stewart more than CNN? because he is entertaining. Why do the news networks (like CNBC) continue to move towards entertainment rather than boring (sarcasm) facts? Because it gains them views.

The difference between you and me is that i see no problem with this. If you dont like it, dont buy their papers or dont watch their station. As long as it is profitable though, they will keep doing. And there is nothing wrong with it.

[Cambridge]

Mar 16, 2009 14:00:35 GMT -5 jgalt said:

Mar 16, 2009 12:16:05 GMT -5 Cambridge said:

And here I though journalism was a profession not a business...of course they said the same thing about the law and medicine, and we all see where that has gone.

At least historically, and philosophically, there has been a distinction between a journalist and a hawker. One was beholden to ethical obligations that went beyond the sale of product. However, while I do doubt whether that has ever really been the case; I am certain that it is not the case today.

I guess this i just a philosophical difference between the two of us (and between me and most of the board). I dont see anything wrong with "journalism" being for profit. If there was no profit in it, then no journalism would exist. Why do you think muckraking became so popular around the turn of the century? because it sells news papers. Why is the national enquirer in better financial health than NYT? because they have stories that excite people (and i am not forgetting the fact the national enquirer is a gossip rag). Why do people watch John Stewart more than CNN? because he is entertaining. Why do the news networks (like CNBC) continue to move towards entertainment rather than boring (sarcasm) facts? Because it gains them views.

The difference between you and me is that i see no problem with this. If you dont like it, dont buy their papers or dont watch their station. As long as it is profitable though, they will keep doing. And there is nothing wrong with it.

I didn't say that I had a problem with it. I was merely pointing out the pretensions of those "professions." Each has an ethical code which appears specifically crafted to place the craft ahead of profit. Now, this may have always been pie in the sky optimism and ridiculous, but I would posit that is this credo of professionalism that lies at the heart of these communities. Maybe, as I said before, this is ridiculous and outdated - but it is well recorded in the heritage and history of the professions.

[kchoya]

Mar 16, 2009 13:22:20 GMT -5 TC said:

Mar 16, 2009 12:58:09 GMT -5 kchoya said:

So what do you propose? Have the government issue checks for what they lost? As commented just below - if you're big into stocks at that age, and you took a big hit over the last year, that's your own fault.

How about CNBC spend as much time making that point as they do spewing about how <fill in the blank> beat the forecast by $.01?

Boy, I'm amazed how people are getting their panties in a bunch about a cable channel spouting off crap. A channel you have to pay to watch, no less. How is CNBC any different than any other financial tout out there?

And to think the guy leading the charge works for a COMEDY network doing FAKE news and he's outraged about what another cable channel is saying. AND to think we have people on this board taking his side like he's giving us some deep thoughts at a debate society function? Plus, we all know the whole reason he's Editeded is because some CNBC bigwig blew him off the week before.