Log in

View Full Version : There's nothing unique about Jim Cramer



Sasaki Kojiro
03-14-2009, 20:43
A very good article (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/03/13/cramer/index.html) about the problems with the state of journalism today...well worth a read.

Jon Stewart is being widely celebrated (http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/03/its_true_jon_stewart_has_becom.php) today and Jim Cramer/CNBC widely mocked -- both rightfully so -- for Stewart's devastatingly adversarial interview of Cramer (who, just by the way, is a Marty Peretz creation (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_44/b3957001.htm)). If you haven't yet seen the interview, you can and should watch it here (http://www.eschatonblog.com/2009/03/cramerica.html); if you watch only one segment, watch the middle one and the beginning of the third.
Stewart focuses on the role Cramer and CNBC played in mindlessly disseminating and uncritically amplifying the false claims from the CEOs and banks which spawned the financial crisis with their blatantly untoward and often illegal practices. Here is the crux of Stewart's critique of Cramer/CNBC:
STEWART: This thing was 10 years in the making . . . . The idea that you could have on the guys from Bear Stearns and Merrill Lynch and guys that had leveraged 35-1 and then blame mortgage holders, that's insane. . . .
CRAMER: I always wish that people would come in and swear themselves in before they come on the show. I had a lot of CEOs lie to me on the show. It's very painful. I don't have subpoena power. . . .
STEWART: You knew what the banks were doing and were touting it for months and months. The entire network was.
CRAMER: But Dick Fuld, who ran Lehman Brothers, called me in - he called me in when the stock was at 40 -- because I was saying: "look, I thought the stock was wrong, thought it was in the wrong place" - he brings me in and lies to me, lies to me, lies to me.
STEWART [feigning shock]: The CEO of a company lied to you?
CRAMER: Shocking.
STEWART: But isn't that financial reporting? What do you think is the role of CNBC? . . . .
CRAMER: I didn't think that Bear Stearns would evaporate overnight. I knew the people who ran it. I thought they were honest. That was my mistake. I really did. I thought they were honest. Did I get taken in because I knew them before? Maybe, to some degree. . . .
It's difficult to have a reporter say: "I just came from an interview with Hank Paulson and he lied his darn-fool head off." It's difficult. I think it challenges the boundaries.
STEWART: But what is the responsibility of the people who cover Wall Street? . . . . I'm under the assumption, and maybe this is purely ridiculous, but I'm under the assumption that you don't just take their word at face value. That you actually then go around and try to figure it out (applause).

That's the heart of the (completely justifiable) attack on Cramer and CNBC by Stewart. They would continuously put scheming CEOs on their shows, conduct completely uncritical "interviews" and allow them to spout wholesale falsehoods. And now that they're being called upon to explain why they did this, their excuse is: Well, we were lied to. What could we have done? And the obvious answer, which Stewart repeatedly expressed, is that people who claim to be "reporters" are obligated not only to provide a forum for powerful people to make claims, but also to then investigate those claims and then to inform the public if the claims are true. That's about as basic as it gets.
Today, everyone -- including media stars everywhere -- is going to take Stewart's side and all join in the easy mockery of Cramer and CNBC, as though what Stewart is saying is so self-evidently true and what Cramer/CNBC did is so self-evidently wrong. But there's absolutely nothing about Cramer that is unique when it comes to our press corps. The behavior that Jon Stewart so expertly dissected last night is exactly what our press corps in general does -- and, when compelled to do so, they say so and are proud of it.
At least give credit to Cramer for facing his critics and addressing (and even acknowledging the validity of) the criticisms. By stark contrast, most of our major media stars simply ignore all criticisms of their corrupt behavior and literally suppress it (even if the criticisms appear (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/04/22/analysts/) as major, lengthy front-page exposés in The New York Times (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/11/30/mccaffrey/index.html)).
Perhaps the most egregious instance of this media cowardice is that there are very few occasions when media stars were willing to address criticisms of their behavior in the run-up to the war. With very few exceptions, they have systematically ignored the criticisms that have been voiced from many sources about the CNBC-like role they played in the dissemination of pre-Iraq-War and other key Bush falsehoods. But on those very few occasions when they were forced to address these issues, their responses demonstrate that they said and did exactly what we're all going to spend today mocking and deriding Cramer and CNBC for having done -- and they continue, to this day, to do that.
One of the very few television programs ever to address the media's complicit dissemination of Bush's pre-war falsehoods was Bill Moyers' superb 2007 PBS documentary, Buying the War (http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/transcript1.html). While most of the media propagandists whom Moyers wanted to interview cowardly refused to answer questions, Tim Russert, to his credit, did appear. Here are the excuses which Russert offered for the general role the media played in spreading Bush administration lies and the specific role Russert played in uncritically amplifying Dick Cheney's assertions about Saddam's nuclear program. I challenge anyone to identify any differences between what Cramer/CNBC did and the justifying excuses Russert offered:
BILL MOYERS: Quoting anonymous administration officials, the Times reported that Saddam Hussein had launched a worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb using specially designed aluminum tubes.
And there on Meet the Press that same morning was Vice President Cheney:
DICK CHENEY (MEET THE PRESS NBC 9/8/02): … Tubes. There's a story in the NEW YORK TIMES this morning, this is-- and I want to attribute this to the TIMES. I don't want to talk about obviously specific intelligence sources, but--
JONATHAN LANDAY, MC CLATCHYS: Now, ordinarily information like the aluminum tubes wouldn't appear. It was top secret intelligence, and the Vice President and the National Security Advisor would not be allowed to talk about this on the Sunday talk shows. But, it appeared that morning in the NEW YORK TIMES and, therefore, they were able to talk about it.
DICK CHENEY (MEET THE PRESS NBC 9/8/02): It's now public that, in fact, he has been seeking to acquire and we have been able to intercept to prevent him from acquiring through this particular channel the kinds of tubes that are necessary to build a centrifuge and the centrifuge is required to take low-grade uranium and enhance it into highly-enriched uranium which is what you have to have in order to build a bomb.
BILL MOYERS: Did you see that performance?
BOB SIMON, CBS: I did.
BILL MOYERS: What did you think?
BOB SIMON: I thought it was remarkable.
BILL MOYERS: Why?
BOB SIMON: Remarkable. You leak a story, and then you quote the story. I mean, that's a remarkable thing to do. . . .
TIM RUSSERT (MEET THE PRESS), TO CHENEY: What specifically has [Saddam] obtained that you believe will enhance his nuclear development program?
BILL MOYERS: Was it just a coincidence in your mind that Cheney came on your show and others went on the other Sunday shows, the very morning that that story appeared?
TIM RUSSERT: I don't know. The NEW YORK TIMES is a better judge of that than I am.
BILL MOYERS: No one tipped you that it was going to happen?
TIM RUSSERT: No, no. I mean-
BILL MOYERS: The Cheney office didn't leak to you that there's gonna be a big story?
TIM RUSSERT: No. No. I mean, I don't have the-- This is, you know-- on MEET THE PRESS, people come on and there are no ground rules. We can ask any question we want. I did not know about the aluminum tubes story until I read it in the NEW YORK TIMES.
BILL MOYERS: Critics point to September Eight, 2002 and to your show in particular, as the classic case of how the press and the government became inseparable. Someone in the Administration plants a dramatic story in the NEW YORK TIMES. And then the Vice President comes on your show and points to the NEW YORK TIMES. It's a circular, self-confirming leak.
TIM RUSSERT: I don't know how Judith Miller and Michael Gordon reported that story, who their sources were. It was a front-page story of the NEW YORK TIMES. When Secretary Rice and Vice President Cheney and others came up that Sunday morning on all the Sunday shows, they did exactly that.
My concern was, is that there were concerns expressed by other government officials. And to this day, I wish my phone had rung, or I had access to them.
BILL MOYERS: Bob Simon didn't wait for the phone to ring.
BILL MOYERS: You said a moment ago when we started talking to people who knew about aluminum tubes. What people-who were you talking to?
BOB SIMON: We were talking to people - to scientists - to scientists and to researchers, and to people who had been investigating Iraq from the start.
BILL MOYERS: Would these people have been available to any reporter who called or were they exclusive sources for 60 MINUTES?
BOB SIMON: No, I think that many of them would have been available to any reporter who called.
BILL MOYERS: And you just picked up the phone?
BOB SIMON: Just picked up the phone.
BILL MOYERS: Talked to them?
BOB SIMON: Talked to them and then went down with the cameras. . . .
WALTER PINCUS: More and more, in the media, become, I think, common carriers of Administration statements, and critics of the Administration. And we've sort of given up being independent on our own.
Compare Russert's self-defense to how and why he uncritically amplified Government lies ("I wish my phone had rung") to Cramer's pretense of victimization over the fact that CEOs lied to him and so there was nothing he could do but assume they were telling the truth ("I don't have subpoena power"). Stewart's primary criticism of Cramer applies with exactly equal force to the excuse offered by Tim "Wish My Phone Had Rung" Russert, who -- to this day -- is held up as the supposed Beacon of Tough Adversarial Journalism in America:
I'm under the assumption that you don't just take their word at face value. That you actually then go around and try to figure it out.
The point that can't be emphasized enough is that this isn't a matter of past history. Unlike Cramer -- who at least admitted fault last night and said he was "chastized" -- most establishment journalists won't acknowledge that there was anything wrong with the behavior of the press corps during the Bush years. The most they'll acknowledge is that it was confined to a couple of bad apples -- The Judy Miller Defense. But the Cramer-like journalistic behavior during that period that was so widespread and did so much damage is behavior that our press corps, to this day, believes is proper and justified.
The only other occasion when media stars were forced to address these criticisms was when Bush's own Press Secretary, Scott McClellan, wrote a book accusing the American media of being "too deferential" to the administration. In response, Russert's replacement, David Gregory, twice insisted that the criticisms directed at the press for the role they played in the run-up to the war are baseless and misguided (http://www.oliverwillis.com/2008/05/28/david-gregory-rewrites-history-says-the-press-did-a-good-job-on-iraq/) -- most recently in an interview with Stephen Colbert (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/01/20/david_gregory/) (after defending the media's pre-war behavior, Gregory was promoted by NBC to his Meet the Press position). When defending the media's behavior, Gregory echoed exactly the defining mentality of Jim Cramer (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/12/29/gregory/): pointing out when officials are lying is "not our role," said Gregory.
During that same time period, two of the three network news anchors (with Katie Couric dissenting) defended the media's pre-war behavior as well (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/05/28/gibson/). In fact, this is what ABC's Charlie Gibson said -- echoing the Cramer view of journalism -- after Couric argued that the media failed to do its job in scrutinizing pre-war Bush claims:
It was just a drumbeat of support from the administration. And it is not our job to debate them; it's our job to ask the questions.
Identically, The Washington Post's David Ignatius actually praised the media's failure (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45001-2004Apr26.html) to object to pre-war Bush lies as a reflection of what Ignatius said is the media's supreme "professionalism":
In a sense, the media were victims of their own professionalism. Because there was little criticism of the war from prominent Democrats and foreign policy analysts, journalistic rules meant we shouldn't create a debate on our own. And because major news organizations knew the war was coming, we spent a lot of energy in the last three months before the war preparing to cover it.
It's fine to praise Jon Stewart for the great interview he conducted and to mock and scoff at Jim Cramer and CNBC. That's absolutely warranted. But just as was true for Judy Miller (and her still-celebrated cohort, Michael Gordon), Jim Cramer isn't an aberration. What he did and the excuses he offered are ones that are embraced as gospel to this day by most of our establishment press corps, and to know that this is true, just look at what they do and say about their roles. But at least Cramer wants to appear to be contrite for the complicit role he played in disseminating incredibly destructive and false claims from the politically powerful. That stands in stark contrast to David Gregory, Charlie Gibson, Brian Williams, David Ignatius and most of their friends, who continue to be defiantly and pompously proud of the exact same role they play.

What I find most disturbing is statements like this:


pointing out when officials are lying is "not our role," said Gregory.

Not his role!? What the heck is he smoking??

Major Robert Dump
03-14-2009, 21:21
What I find just as disturbing is that journalists who did question the administration and people who just simply didn't believe Bush and Cheney's information were called cowards, unpatriotic, Saddam apologists, Chamberlains, etc etc.

Rep John Hostettler, One of the 6 Republicans who would not vote for action on Iraq was visited by Cheney. Cheney asked for his vote. He asked to see evidence. Cheney tells him "you don't have the security clearance" to view such things. In other words, we don't have any.

While I understand the media negligence in the economic crisis and the negligence in the war are somewhat comparable, one was perpetuated by financial figures and one was perpetuated by high ranking government officials. One reports to the government and can be FOId, and one reports to no one, can ignore FOIs, can hide behind "security clearances" and, once the war gets under way, can hide behind the troops (how dare you question me when our troops are out there?). Clinton did the same thing with Belgrade.

So while the journalistic behavior is somewhat comparable, I would actually say it is more negligent in the case of the economy because there was not as much government muzzling going on as there is with war.

Oh, and people get bored with financial reporting. News needs ratings, investigations take time, and advertisers pay the bills.

So what sort of political leaning is Salon and the reporter in the article alledged to have? Because I'm hearing more and more conservatives on tv and radio blaming the financial crisis on the media for too much reporting.

Sasaki Kojiro
03-14-2009, 21:26
So what sort of political leaning is Salon and the reporter in the article alledged to have? Because I'm hearing more and more conservatives on tv and radio blaming the financial crisis on the media for too much reporting.

I don't know much about salon or the author, but blaming the media for "too much reporting" is ridiculous. Essentially they're saying that if media had kept saying everything was ok the bubble would have kept growing and never burst? Right :smash:

Hosakawa Tito
03-14-2009, 22:32
Cramer is a showman and cheerleader for every market bubble over the last ten years. Anyone who takes his investment advice is making a mistake.

Gregoshi
03-14-2009, 23:36
Cramer is a showman and cheerleader for every market bubble over the last ten years. Anyone who takes his investment advice is making a mistake.
So when he'd say it was a "bull" market, he just wasn't completing the phrase? :inquisitive:

CountArach
03-15-2009, 07:47
I read this article the other day as well. Greenwald is brilliant and raises many important issues in regard to media complicity with government policy.

Xiahou
03-15-2009, 10:13
I don't know much about salon or the author, but blaming the media for "too much reporting" is ridiculous. Essentially they're saying that if media had kept saying everything was ok the bubble would have kept growing and never burst? Right :smash:
The only mutterings I've heard along those lines is that the panic mode the media is in could be further depressing the economy by scaring consumers, which makes them spend less, which further drives down home prices, which further devalues mortgages held by banks, which means they have to write off bigger losses.... you get the idea.

There's always been an annoying air of entitlement in the media, I think. They expect to be fed news- to have all the work done for them by someone else, so all they have to worry about is what direction they want to spin it in, rather than actually doing any fact checking, or investigating of their own. Of course, this is going to continue until news consumers demand higher standards from the reporters- which I don't see happening anytime soon.

As to John Stewart, he -even in this story- continues to annoy the hell out of me. He can freely go out and trash the methods and credibility of those in the news business while having the comfort of not being held to any of the standards he seems to be demanding. He can do whatever he wants and if anyone would try to call him out for making ad-hominem attacks or distortions, inaccuracies, or anything he can just fall back to "Oh, but I'm just a guy on a comedy show!".

Here's a take (http://www.thesimon.com/magazine/articles/bias/0667_jon_stewart_hypocrite.html) from a writer whose view largely parallels mine. The difference is this was about the infamous Crossfire incident, as opposed to the Cramer kerfuffle. But I think the same criticism applies.
But there's something that rubs me the wrong way about you going on someone else's news show and telling them they do a :daisy: job. Wouldn't it be weird if Adam Clymer came to your show and told you it sucked and wouldn't you please make it better, for the sake of American laughter everywhere? Because really, Adam Clymer may tell some great jokes at dinner parties, but he probably doesn't know :daisy: about how to make people laugh. And that's what you do — you make them laugh at the truth to keep them from crying.

The fact that Crossfire isn't exactly the pinnacle of American journalism isn't even the point. Walter Cronkite, the Boston Globe, the Washington Post, Ted Koppel — whoever. I have a hunch you would have taken whatever opportunity given to kick the Fourth Estate in the ass. Lord knows the media could use it. But still, Jon, I'm not feeling you on this one.

Because, you know, it's really easy to launch firebombs of criticism and then back off and say you won't help because it's not your job. The "comedy show" guise is pretty disingenuous too, Jon. Your show is an op-ed page and everyone knows it. That's why we watch it. Conan O'Brien makes us laugh. You make as laugh and think. You of all people should know that.

It really raises the level of discourse when you call Tucker Carlson a :daisy: and make fun of his clothes. There you are, playing concerned citizen and funnyman. You demand the truth and meaningful discussions but then revert to the third grade. But, I forgot, you're a comedian.

I still watch your show and you still make me laugh. But stay behind the desk, my friend. Keep doing your comedy. It's what you're great at.
I think Stewart needs to figure out what set of rules he wants to play by and just stick with those. If he wants to be a serious news commentator clamoring for reform, then he needs to start holding himself to his own standards. If he wants to be a cutesy funny man, then just stick to that. Right now, he's just being a shameless hypocrite.

Banquo's Ghost
03-15-2009, 10:18
I think Stewart needs to figure out what set of rules he wants to play by and just stick with those. If he wants to be a serious news commentator clamoring for reform, then he needs to start holding himself to his own standards. If he wants to be a cutesy funny man, then just stick to that. Right now, he's just being a shameless hypocrite.

Why?

Satirists have always pricked the pomposity of those in power. It is for others to develop solutions if they so wish. Why does he have to limit himself to a label or arbitrary rules? Unless you're telling me there are people who take him as a serious journalist?

Xiahou
03-15-2009, 10:25
Unless you're telling me there are people who take him as a serious journalist?
Of course there are. Are you serious? He interviews world leaders, and government representatives. He recently interviewed and savaged Cramer for his incompetence and lack of integrity. People in the government and news media love to go on his show to talk about issues of the day. John Edwards announced his candidacy on the show! To quote my spoiler from above:
Because, you know, it's really easy to launch firebombs of criticism and then back off and say you won't help because it's not your job. The "comedy show" guise is pretty disingenuous too, Jon. Your show is an op-ed page and everyone knows it. That's why we watch it. Conan O'Brien makes us laugh. You make as laugh and think. You of all people should know that.It's a news show, until it's convenient for him to claim its a comedy show. That's my whole point, he's a hypocrite. He damned Crossfire and said they were hurting the country. He calls out Cramer and damns him for his lack of integrity. Yet when the ball's in his court he winks and smiles and claims to be just a comedian.

CountArach
03-15-2009, 10:33
So what sort of political leaning is Salon and the reporter in the article alledged to have?
I do believe Salon itself is a fairly progressive institution (as many of the internet-based media outlets are) and Greenwald is a dyed-in-the-wool progressive himself. Very pro-human/civil rights, anti-Bush and pro-Obama while accepting that he leaves a lot to be desired when it comes to Progressive politics.

My take from reading him for the past 8 or so months.

Banquo's Ghost
03-15-2009, 10:40
Of course there are. Are you serious? He interviews world leaders, and government representatives. He recently interviewed and savaged Cramer for his incompetence and lack of integrity. People in the government and news media love to go on his show to talk about issues of the day. John Edwards announced his candidacy on the show! To quote my spoiler from above:It's a news show, until it's convenient for him to claim its a comedy show. That's my whole point, he's a hypocrite.

Well, you amaze me, but I guess you have a better understanding of the US audience.

I watch it, and see a satirical show that is so popular, politicians et al love to be on it to try have that popularity rub off. They do the same with Oprah, and maybe viewers think that's incisive journalism too?

If the general public really think its a news show, you have deeper problems than whether Stewart is a hypocrite - which illuminates perhaps, Sasaki's original point. Maybe the media gets away with being supine because there is a uncritical, unthinking audience asking to be spoon-fed its politics?

Fascinating.

seireikhaan
03-15-2009, 14:49
Xiahou, here's the thing: He was DEAD right about crossfire, and he was DEAD right about Cramer. And, let's see, there's been about 5 years in between those moments. He's had the opportunity to go after others in the news and try to sink their careers, but simply settled for "yuks". Its not as though Stewart is looking to ruin the careers of everyone in the news every other day. Most of the time, he's poking fun, and that's about it.

Lemur
03-15-2009, 16:56
If the general public really think its a news show, you have deeper problems than whether Stewart is a hypocrite - which illuminates perhaps, Sasaki's original point.
That's Xiahou's take, unsubstantiated by any research or polling. If we're going to fling around baseless opinions, then I'll say that Rush Limbaugh is taken rather more seriously by his base than Stewart is by his. You won't see Stewart addressing an adoring crowd at a national Democratic convention, and you won't see any Dems crawling on their bellies to him apologizing when they dare speak ill of him. Stewart is a comedian, and nobody in their right mind takes him as a major political figure.

The reason politicos love to go on his show is that his audience is young, educated and slightly more likely to be politically engaged. Oh, and I have data (http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/TV/09/28/comedy.politics/index.html). The politicians want a little bit of that "hip" vibe, even if they don't understand what it is.

Dannagal Goldthwaite Young, a senior research analyst at the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, said "Daily Show" viewers came out on top "even when education, party identification, following politics, watching cable news, receiving campaign information online, age and gender are taken into consideration."

The quiz was given to 19,013 adults between July 15 and September 19.
Another article (http://people-press.org/report/319/public-knowledge-of-current-affairs-little-changed-by-news-and-information-revolutions) that doesn't match with Xiahou's narrative, not that we should let facts get in the way of a good story.

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/319-2.gif
-edit-

On the Daily Show viewer composition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Show#With_Jon_Stewart_.281999.E2.80.93present.29): "In demographic terms, the viewership is skewed to a relatively young audience compared to traditional news shows. A 2004 Nielsen Media Research study commissioned by Comedy Central put the median age at 35." I believe that's the same study that pegged the DS viewers as substantially more likely to have a four-year degree (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6117542/) that the general population.

As for this notion that a comedian clamoring for reform is somehow a double standard, I'll just note that someone hasn't read his Shakespeare; only the fool is allowed to tell the unvarnished truth to the king. And even then, if I recall correctly, Lear threatens the fool with a horsewhipping. Comedians pointing out the inherent absurdity of a system? That's not a double-standard. That's what comedy does.

Sasaki Kojiro
03-15-2009, 18:46
Of course there are. Are you serious? He interviews world leaders, and government representatives. He recently interviewed and savaged Cramer for his incompetence and lack of integrity. People in the government and news media love to go on his show to talk about issues of the day. John Edwards announced his candidacy on the show! To quote my spoiler from above:It's a news show, until it's convenient for him to claim its a comedy show. That's my whole point, he's a hypocrite. He damned Crossfire and said they were hurting the country. He calls out Cramer and damns him for his lack of integrity. Yet when the ball's in his court he winks and smiles and claims to be just a comedian.


One anchor, six correspondents, zero credibility.

If you're tired of the stodginess of the evening newscasts and you can't bear to sit through the spinmeisters and shills on the 24-hour cable news network, don't miss The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, the nightly half-hour series unburdened by objectivity, journalistic integrity or even accuracy.


Jim Cramer believes that there is always a bull market somewhere, and he wants to help you find it. "Mad Money" takes viewers inside the mind of one of Wall Street's most respected and successful money managers. Cramer is your personal guide through the confusing jungle of investing, navigating through both opportunities and pitfalls with one goal in mind — to help you make money. "Mad Money" features Cramer's unmatched, fiery opinions and the popular Lightning Round, in which Cramer gives his "Buy," "Sell," and "Hold" opinions on stocks to callers.

See the difference?

Not being a hard hitting journalist by profession IS an excuse for not acting like a hard hitting journalist. If you disagree, what is your excuse for not getting to the bottom of the financial crisis yourself and reporting it to the American people?

Proletariat
03-15-2009, 19:27
Anyone who ever took Cramer seriously in the first place is a high grade imbecile. He's what is known in the gambling world as a 'tout'. You listen to his dumbass advice and use it as an indicator of what you do the exact opposite of.

Anyway, great job Jon Stewart. He really vented what alot of Americans are feeling in maybe the most insignificant story of the week. This headline should be grouped with 'Mike Tyson defeats a midget in the first round' and the 'Earth is round' and 'Shaquille is a large black male'.

Sasaki Kojiro
03-15-2009, 20:08
Anyone who ever took Cramer seriously in the first place is a high grade imbecile. He's what is known in the gambling world as a 'tout'. You listen to his dumbass advice and use it as an indicator of what you do the exact opposite of.

It's like my neighbor he used to pretend he was a doctor. Only idiots trusted him of course--that's why I was ok with it.


Anyway, great job Jon Stewart. He really vented what alot of Americans are feeling in maybe the most insignificant story of the week. This headline should be grouped with 'Mike Tyson defeats a midget in the first round' and the 'Earth is round' and 'Shaquille is a large black male'.

He was going after cnbc not cramer.

Doesn't it concern you that the prevailing wisdom among reporters is that it isn't their job to say when a politician is lying?

Askthepizzaguy
03-15-2009, 20:18
Cramer got what was coming to him. The trouble is, there are a lot more, and a lot more important, people to go after. Copy everything Jon said to Cramer about things that didn't only apply to Cramer himself, and force all the Wall-Street traders, CEO's, and financial news reporters, analysts, and commentators who are all responsible for this mess (NOT the "losers" who had the gall to buy a home) to have to listen to it, over and over, for 6 straight hours. No bathroom breaks, and no blinking. I'll get the Visine.

Good read, Sasaki.

And Jon Stewart is a satirist, and if Jon Stewart were purporting to be a real source of factual news, which he COMPLETELY denies at every possible, conceivable opportunity, then any criticism of his lack of 100% factual information would be valid. As it is, he's up there with say, George Carlin, who advocated in his act never washing his hands, driving very unsafely, and people killing one another. They are just jokes. Once in a whole, a comedian makes a comment about real life that is biting and incisive, and he calls out a real jerk for being a real jerk. But unless he's purporting to be a real journalist, not a news satirist, he can say whatever he pleases to get a laugh, or to express an opinion, and there is not one :daisy: thing hypocritical about it.

That's my take, anyway.

a completely inoffensive name
03-15-2009, 21:29
...

Askthepizzaguy
03-15-2009, 21:34
As such, I find her to be completely inoffensive. :wink:

Or at least, what it stands for, ACIN.... :clown:

Xiahou
03-15-2009, 23:43
Another article (http://people-press.org/report/319/public-knowledge-of-current-affairs-little-changed-by-news-and-information-revolutions) that doesn't match with Xiahou's narrative, not that we should let facts get in the way of a good story.What's hilarious about the table you posted is that it even lists the Daily Show as a news source. Nice job showing me what's what. :laugh4:

There are regular studies done about the Daily Show and all of them look at it as a news source or are evaluating its journalistic wieght.

There's the infamous Pew Poll (http://people-press.org/report/200/cable-and-internet-loom-large-in-fragmented-political-news-universe) that found:
One-in-five young people say they regularly get campaign news from the Internet, and about as many (21%) say the same about comedy shows such as Saturday Night Live and the Daily Show. For Americans under 30, these comedy shows are now mentioned almost as frequently as newspapers and evening network news programs as regular sources for election news.And a quick Google search can turn up studies such as:

New study says Comedy Central fake news show contains just as much truth as real news. (http://www.tv.com/story/6619.html)

or this from the Project For Excellence in Journalism: Journalism, Satire or Just Laughs? "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart," Examined (http://journalism.org/node/10953)
When Americans last year were asked to name the journalist they most admired, a comedian showed up at No. 4 on the list. Jon Stewart, host of The Daily Show on Comedy Central and former master of ceremonies at Academy Award shows, tied in the rankings with anchormen Brian Williams, Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather and cable host Anderson Cooper.
But no, no one considers the Daily Show a legitimate news source.~:handball:
I'm sorry that it upsets the fanboys, but Stewart is being hypocrite. He bemoans the state of our media and shames those he deems responsible. Yet, if someone dares mention his contributions to the apathetic, sensationalist media he quickly deflects using his "I'm a comedy guy" defense.

Askthepizzaguy
03-15-2009, 23:48
it's a satire show which talks about the news. In a sense, that makes it a news source. However, it's not, and never has been, a LEGITIMATE news source. No one has claimed that Jon is a legitimate journalist, nor do they claim he is a source of legitimate news. If legitimate news sneaks through, it's for a joke or a bit.

There's a big difference between a journalist and a comedian playing one. Just like there's a difference between a real news anchor and Ron Burgundy, played by Will Ferrell.

No one is confusing the two.

Sasaki Kojiro
03-15-2009, 23:50
You can't hold Stewart responsible for the poor quality of news shows ~D

Let me get this straight:

1) He's not a journalist or a reporter
2) His show is a fake news comedy show
3) He says that his show is a fake news comedy show, therefore:

4) He has a responsibility to be a leading investigative journalist, and can't criticize anyone who isn't even when the purpose of his show is to satirize the failings of the news networks

Something tells me you went a little of course jumping from 3 to 4 :laugh4:

Askthepizzaguy
03-15-2009, 23:51
Are people getting upset because so much fact does sneak through? And that it gets people more aware of what is happening? Kind of like wikipedia; it's not 100% reliable, and we all know that. But people still tune in to find jokes about the news, and some information filters through. It's still comedy, not journalism.

Intelligent comedy based on the news does not equate to being the news.

woad&fangs
03-16-2009, 00:06
You can't hold Stewart responsible for the poor quality of news shows ~D


That's basically how I feel. I willingly admit that I get a large amount of my news from the daily show. I know that it is a comedy show and I know that Stewart is far from unbiased. Still, he is unfortunately the best news source on TV. I turned on the CBS morning news a couple days ago and the two top stories were "The latest developments in Anna Nicole's death!!1" and "Cramer and Steward's media Feud!!1".

At least with Stewart I know I'll hear about major economic and political events within the first five minutes. :wall:

My top news source is still the .Org. I know I'll get every perspective when I read the backroom:bow:

Askthepizzaguy
03-16-2009, 00:14
Morning news is more like the Fake news than the Daily show. Seriously, most morning "news" shows are more like a gossip/variety show, where nothing even remotely depressing or serious gets discussed.

Morning news is the death of real news. Read a newspaper, online if you have to; get real news. And don't use just one news source.

Major Robert Dump
03-16-2009, 01:08
I understand completely what Xaihou is saying..... Stewart frequently throws out the "hey I'm just a comedian" line and, towards the end of i think its clip number two, he says something like "you go back to providing accurate financial reporting and i'll go back to making fart jokes" as if he's ole pappa telling us dont make me get up out of this chair or there will be hell to pay. I like Stewart a lot, but it annoys the hell out of me when he does that. I would be fine with him if he just didn't say crap like that, and if he just admitted that his journalist institution dropped the ball too because, regardless of what people believe, satire hinges on truth and facts. They have proved people to be liars on the Daily show on many occasions, and made a joke about it.

Ronin
03-16-2009, 01:23
I understand completely what Xaihou is saying..... Stewart frequently throws out the "hey I'm just a comedian" line and, towards the end of i think its clip number two, he says something like "you go back to providing accurate financial reporting and i'll go back to making fart jokes" as if he's ole pappa telling us dont make me get up out of this chair or there will be hell to pay. I like Stewart a lot, but it annoys the hell out of me when he does that. I would be fine with him if he just didn't say crap like that, and if he just admitted that his journalist institution dropped the ball too because, regardless of what people believe, satire hinges on truth and facts. They have proved people to be liars on the Daily show on many occasions, and made a joke about it.

Stewart comes across to me as a guy that gets genuinely pissed off at the nonsense he sees around him and at times steps out of his comedic place and slams someone for real... I for one commend him for it....it would be a lot more easier to do nothing and keep making fun of the increasingly bad situation.

the truth is that he wouldn´t have to, or have any justification to do so, if the actual news organizations did their job in a competent way.....anyone that watches American news broadcasts knows that they don´t even come close to that.

Major Robert Dump
03-16-2009, 01:29
Yes but he is a showman. It is show business. I'm not suggesting he is not genuinely concerned with the affairs of the country, but it does seem like an attempt to simeltaneously wash his hands of the situation and garnish supporters in the process. I see right through what he's doing. He either needs to do it more, or not do it at all.

a completely inoffensive name
03-16-2009, 02:04
...

Askthepizzaguy
03-16-2009, 02:24
I understand completely what Xaihou is saying..... Stewart frequently throws out the "hey I'm just a comedian" line and, towards the end of i think its clip number two, he says something like "you go back to providing accurate financial reporting and i'll go back to making fart jokes" as if he's ole pappa telling us dont make me get up out of this chair or there will be hell to pay. I like Stewart a lot, but it annoys the hell out of me when he does that. I would be fine with him if he just didn't say crap like that, and if he just admitted that his journalist institution dropped the ball too because, regardless of what people believe, satire hinges on truth and facts. They have proved people to be liars on the Daily show on many occasions, and made a joke about it.

The Daily Show does not have the ability to do hard hitting investigative financial reporting. They are people who are writers and comedians, and they aren't even real members of the press, are they?

You're expecting a clown to solve mysteries. I'd advise you to re-examine that position.

Major Robert Dump
03-16-2009, 02:37
Shut up or label himself as a journalist. Those aren't the two choices he has.

Look, it's not the fact that he's speaking out. It's not the fact that he's a comedian. But he's acting like a company manager who only comes downstairs to hobnob with the workers when something is really jacked up, and I find it very irritating.

He can keep doing what he's doing, and I hope he does, except the whole .... okay, I'll go back to making fart jokes, but I'll be back if things get ugly again. Pleaaaaaaaaaaase. He's acting like some sacred goat of entertainers. I don't care when entertainers get political, perfectly okay by me. But no other comedians/actors etc that I can think of do that but him, and it's so transparent.

Again, I'm a huge John Stewart fan, practically grew up with the guys comedy. no disrespect.

a completely inoffensive name
03-16-2009, 02:40
...

Askthepizzaguy
03-16-2009, 02:42
I'll respect your opinion even if I disagree with it, MRD.

You could go after Jon Stewart if he was being hypocritical. If say, the Daily Show, were inviting on all kinds of CEO's and giving them soft interviews and recommending stock in their companies, then it would be totally hypocritical of Jon to do what he's doing.

As it stands, he's just one guy asking questions of someone he can interview, kind of like when David Letterman points out John McCain's inconsistencies. No one suggested David Letterman was being a hypocrite for pointing out inconsistencies. It's their jobs as comedians to point out irony, hypocrisy, inconsistency, and create satire based off of it.

Major Robert Dump
03-16-2009, 03:01
I don't care that he's speaking out. He speaks out a lot, and it's great.

But when Sean Penn, Or George Clooney, Or Bill Maher, or George Carlin, or Letterman, Or Phil Donahue or Oprah Winfrey speak out on issues they don't finish it off with ...."but i'm just an actor."

I'm not expecting these media figures to be investigative journalists, I'm not expecting the Daily Show to be financial reporters, and thats why they don't need to qualify their opinions by pointing out that they are not. Stewart does not need to remind us that he is a comedian, and the people who expect his show to do some great public service in reporting are wrong as well. On the other hand, people who pose as legitimate journalists and let the public down with BS reporting need to be slapped and cornholed

But the whole thing is an orchestrated PR spectacle. Watch Jon Stewart get serious.......ooooh.....Well, then get serious, Jon, and do it more often. Theres no line to cross, so stop acting like you crossed one as some grand act of courage. I want to see more of the Jon that I saw on crossfire and in the cramer interview

Sasaki Kojiro
03-16-2009, 03:04
I don't think he has that much control over the show.

a completely inoffensive name
03-16-2009, 03:06
...

Xiahou
03-16-2009, 06:55
He can keep doing what he's doing, and I hope he does, except the whole .... okay, I'll go back to making fart jokes, but I'll be back if things get ugly again. Pleaaaaaaaaaaase. He's acting like some sacred goat of entertainers. I don't care when entertainers get political, perfectly okay by me. But no other comedians/actors etc that I can think of do that but him, and it's so transparent.

That's definitely part of it. But also, recognize the fact that he is a force in the media- there's no denying that. People think of him as a journalist and by some studies, they consider him a highly respected one. Whatever he claims to be is irrelevant. That's in itself isn't the problem though- there are lots of crappy news shows out there afterall. When he really gets under my skin is when he bemoans others as in the cases Crossfire or Cramer. He excoriated them for hurting the political discourse in America, all the while glibly dismissing his own contributions to that end.

If he cared as much as he claims he does when he calls these people out, he would be more circumspect about what kind of influence his own show is having on the national discourse. But he doesn't care- "not my problem, my show is a comedy show", he says. He cares enough to slam others and shame them off the airwaves, but his care ends at his own doorstep. There's the hypocrisy.

Sure, he can claim that he never asked to wield influence or that it's not his fault that he does. (personally, I don't believe that) But it's irrelevant, he does wield influence. I've listed sources demonstrating that, but all the proof you need is the Cramer story itself and the shockwaves it has created.

a completely inoffensive name
03-16-2009, 07:23
...

Xiahou
03-16-2009, 09:34
So, to summarize:

1) I don't understand.
2) I don't understand.
3) I don't understand.
and
4)I don't understand.

Got it. ~:thumb:

Askthepizzaguy
03-16-2009, 09:37
It seems that the opposing viewpoints are at an impasse. That's fine! There's room enough in this world for honest disagreement. In my opinion, neither side will convince the other, so it is rather pointless to continue. I'm sure there are other points to discuss besides whether or not JS is a hypocrite for his behavior, especially if no meeting of the minds can happen on that point specifically.

:shakehands:

Strike For The South
03-16-2009, 10:21
Stewarts funny and there may even be some truth to what he says when he gets serious but at the end of the day is much easier to look at everything in hindsight and say "well look you idiot". Waiting for the dust to settle and then scrambling for the moral highground makes Stewart and Cramer the same animal going after different prey.

Lemur
03-16-2009, 13:30
What's hilarious about the table you posted is that it even lists the Daily Show as a news source. Nice job showing me what's what. :laugh4:
You're welcome. Also note that Rush Limbaugh's show is listed as a "news source" for the purposes of that survey. I love your ability to ignore an entire page's worth of points and zero in on one rather insignificant bit of chart labeling as though that redeems your argument, which up to this point has consisted of nothing more than some quoted rants from some essayist. Hard data, thy name is Xiahou.

CountArach
03-16-2009, 13:35
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/319-2.gif
*Straight into the vein*

Major Robert Dump
03-16-2009, 21:09
"Stewart does not need to remind us that he is a comedian, and the people who expect his show to do some great public service in reporting are wrong as well."

You just ruined your own argument. The whole reason he has to state he is just a comedian is exactly because people expect his show to be more then a comedy and satire show when he makes these confrontations.

I didn't ruin anything. Some people expect his show to be more than comedy. Not all, some. He levvies his "I'm just a comedian" far more often than just the times when, for example, the guys on crossfire and this cramer guy tell him to do some reporting.

Ever see the angry guy being restrained by his friends at the party, yelling at some bloke you lucky they holding me back, you lucky!!!! That's Jon.

a completely inoffensive name
03-17-2009, 03:00
...

HopAlongBunny
03-17-2009, 04:51
Cramer is a showman and cheerleader for every market bubble over the last ten years. Anyone who takes his investment advice is making a mistake.

And that is what he said on the Daily Show.

Actually, the sub-text of what he said was that those who can "game" the market, do so; that the crash was not an accident; and that some ppl made out like bandits on it. The Daily Show is probably the only forum where those things could be said and not result in a public lynching.

A very good performance by all involved. Kudos to Stewart and Cramer:dancinglock:

Spino
03-17-2009, 04:59
Stewart's coverage of Cramer (from what little I saw) was well done, his staff really covered the bases. My problem with Stewart is that he seemed to go after Cramer with such abandon. I mean seriously, we're talking about Jim Cramer! Stewart treated Cramer's flubs as if they were the height of irresponsibility. This as opposed to say, Obama's parade of appointees with tax problems? I don't recall seeing any sound bites of Jon blowing a gasket or pontificating over any of that.

Cramer's show, Mad Money, is done in the same vein as Comedy Central, it's entertainment albeit in the form of Wall Street talk drenched in infantile gags and emo rants. Only a fool is going to accept all of Cramer's advice at face value (and apparently not many fools at that based on the ratings I've seen).

The vibe I'm getting is that Stewart and his writers want to hold Cramer morally accountable for his actions. I don't care if they make fun of Cramer and his emo hi-jinks laden hypocrisy, my problem is with them treating him as if he's part of the problem. I don't want to invoke the age old expression 'caveat emptor' but if I did I would first need someone to tell me what exactly is Cramer selling? Nothing! No wait, hot air. Cramer is nothing more than the broadcast equivalent of an op-ed columnist looking to make a splash with his daily column. Ok, so he felt supremely confident about purchasing Bear Stearns' stock weeks before it tanked... silly Cramer! Who the hell cares?!?

But back to our Latin lesson does the even the spirit of the phrase caveat emptor mean anything to people anymore? If people want to play cowboy with their savings and frolic in the high risk world of stocks based upon Cramer's emo pearls of frenetic wisdom then that's their business. There are a wealth of sources available online, in libraries and in bookstores that will help someone not familiar with investing put together a sensible plan and help them navigate and/or idenitfy some of the hazards of Wall Street. Sensible people are wiser with regard to how they spend and invest their money and above all, they don't take ninnies like Cramer to heart. I believe Stewart's problem is that he probably believes on some deeper level that people (in this case investors) should only be held accountable for their actions when there is no individual, entity or external force present that can affect their judgment... you know, in a perfect world where nothing bad ever happens. Ridiculous.

In short I'm at a loss as to why Jon Stewart is telling the world we're supposed to feel sorry for people who lost their nest eggs because they prayed at the altar of the emo ninny known as Jim Cramer!

Last but not least where is all of this indignation and self-righteousness when Jon has the big wigs on his show instead of wimpy wussheads like Cramer? I guess it's easier to kick a retarded puppy in the head than a pitbull.

Sasaki Kojiro
03-17-2009, 05:04
There appears to be an inverse relationship between amount of attention paid during the interview and amount of anti-TDS ranting...

KukriKhan
03-17-2009, 13:32
I don't get it; it's one entertainer yelling at another entertainer that he's yelling too much?

It's TV. How serious could it be? If it's not on The History Channel or C-SPAN, it isn't real anyway, right?

Gregoshi
03-17-2009, 13:37
...it isn't real anyway, right?
I say that everytime I tune into C-SPAN.

CountArach
03-26-2009, 01:49
Interesting poll released today (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/entertainment/nearly_one_third_of_younger_americans_see_colbert_stewart_as_alternatives_to_traditional_news_outlet s)

Nearly one-third of Americans under the age of 40 say satirical news-oriented television programs like The Colbert Report and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart are taking the place of traditional news outlets.
[...]
Thirty-nine percent (39%) of adults say programs of this nature are making Americans more informed about news events, while 21% believe they make people less informed. Twelve percent (12%) say they have no impact.

Twenty-one percent (21%) characterize programs like The Colbert Report and The Daily Show as at least somewhat influential in shaping their political opinions, including seven percent (7%) who say they are Very Influential. Most (70%) say they are not influential, with 44% who say they are not at all influential.
[...]
Forty-eight percent (48%) of Democrats say the programs make them more informed about news events, as do 38% of unaffiliated adults and 28% of Republicans. A plurality of Republicans (35%) say the programs make Americans less informed, a view shared by 21% of unaffiliateds and just 10% of Democrats.