Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 51

Thread: There's nothing unique about Jim Cramer

  1. #1

    Default There's nothing unique about Jim Cramer

    A very good article about the problems with the state of journalism today...well worth a read.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Jon Stewart is being widely celebrated 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). If you haven't yet seen the interview, you can and should watch it here; 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 as major, lengthy front-page exposés in The New York Times).
    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. 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 -- most recently in an interview with Stephen Colbert (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: 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. 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 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:

    Quote Originally Posted by David Gregory
    pointing out when officials are lying is "not our role," said Gregory.
    Not his role!? What the heck is he smoking??

  2. #2
    smell the glove Senior Member Major Robert Dump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    OKRAHOMER
    Posts
    7,424

    Default Re: There's nothing unique about Jim Cramer

    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.
    Baby Quit Your Cryin' Put Your Clown Britches On!!!

  3. #3

    Default Re: There's nothing unique about Jim Cramer

    Quote Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump View Post
    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

  4. #4
    Hope guides me Senior Member Hosakawa Tito's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Western New Yuck
    Posts
    7,914

    Default Re: There's nothing unique about Jim Cramer

    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.
    "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." *Jim Elliot*

  5. #5
    Moderator Moderator Gregoshi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Central Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    12,967

    Default Re: There's nothing unique about Jim Cramer

    Quote Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito View Post
    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?
    This space intentionally left blank

  6. #6
    Poll Smoker Senior Member CountArach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    9,029

    Default Re: There's nothing unique about Jim Cramer

    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.
    Rest in Peace TosaInu, the Org will be your legacy
    Quote Originally Posted by Leon Blum - For All Mankind
    Nothing established by violence and maintained by force, nothing that degrades humanity and is based on contempt for human personality, can endure.

  7. #7
    The very model of a modern Moderator Xiahou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    in the cloud.
    Posts
    9,007

    Default Re: There's nothing unique about Jim Cramer

    Quote Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro View Post
    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
    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 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.
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    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 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 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 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.
    Last edited by Xiahou; 03-15-2009 at 10:14.
    "Don't believe everything you read online."
    -Abraham Lincoln

  8. #8
    L'Etranger Senior Member Banquo's Ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Hunting the Snark, a long way from Tipperary...
    Posts
    5,604

    Default Re: There's nothing unique about Jim Cramer

    Quote Originally Posted by Xiahou View Post
    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?
    "If there is a sin against life, it consists not so much in despairing as in hoping for another life and in eluding the implacable grandeur of this one."
    Albert Camus "Noces"

  9. #9
    The very model of a modern Moderator Xiahou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    in the cloud.
    Posts
    9,007

    Default Re: There's nothing unique about Jim Cramer

    Quote Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Xiahou; 03-15-2009 at 10:39.
    "Don't believe everything you read online."
    -Abraham Lincoln

  10. #10
    Poll Smoker Senior Member CountArach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    9,029

    Default Re: There's nothing unique about Jim Cramer

    Quote Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump View Post
    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.
    Last edited by CountArach; 03-15-2009 at 10:35.
    Rest in Peace TosaInu, the Org will be your legacy
    Quote Originally Posted by Leon Blum - For All Mankind
    Nothing established by violence and maintained by force, nothing that degrades humanity and is based on contempt for human personality, can endure.

  11. #11
    L'Etranger Senior Member Banquo's Ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Hunting the Snark, a long way from Tipperary...
    Posts
    5,604

    Default Re: There's nothing unique about Jim Cramer

    Quote Originally Posted by Xiahou View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Banquo's Ghost; 03-15-2009 at 10:42. Reason: Spelling
    "If there is a sin against life, it consists not so much in despairing as in hoping for another life and in eluding the implacable grandeur of this one."
    Albert Camus "Noces"

  12. #12
    Spirit King Senior Member seireikhaan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Iowa, USA.
    Posts
    7,065
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: There's nothing unique about Jim Cramer

    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.
    It is better to conquer yourself than to win a thousand battles. Then, the victory is yours. It cannot be taken from you, not by angels or by demons, heaven or hell.

  13. #13
    Nobody expects the Senior Member Lemur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Wisconsin Death Trip
    Posts
    15,754

    Default Re: There's nothing unique about Jim Cramer

    Quote Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost View Post
    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. 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 that doesn't match with Xiahou's narrative, not that we should let facts get in the way of a good story.



    -edit-

    On the Daily Show viewer composition: "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 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.
    Last edited by Lemur; 03-15-2009 at 17:15.
    "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them ... well, I have others." — Groucho Marx

  14. #14

    Default Re: There's nothing unique about Jim Cramer

    Quote Originally Posted by Xiahou View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by The daily show website
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mad money website
    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?

  15. #15
    Member Senior Member Proletariat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Far up in the Magnolia Tree.
    Posts
    3,550

    Default Re: There's nothing unique about Jim Cramer

    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'.

  16. #16

    Default Re: There's nothing unique about Jim Cramer

    Quote Originally Posted by Proletariat View Post
    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?

  17. #17
    Know the dark side Member Askthepizzaguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    25,559

    Default Re: There's nothing unique about Jim Cramer

    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 thing hypocritical about it.

    That's my take, anyway.
    #Winstontoostrong
    #Montytoostronger

  18. #18
    Ni dieu ni maître! Senior Member a completely inoffensive name's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    I live on the org, feeding off of what few thanks are tossed at my posts. It is up to you to make sure I don't starve.
    Posts
    8,614

    Default Re: There's nothing unique about Jim Cramer

    Almost all news organizations are absolutely pointless nowadays. Forget those who listen to Cramer, those who just absorb their info from newspapers and T.V. are probably horribly uninformed. Satire, and the internet is in my opinion the only remaining sources of true, constructive info, unlike the major news networks (Obama's not wearing a flag pin!).

    My favorite moment of newspaper and T.V. network ineptitude was when Sarah Palin's Yahoo account was hacked and it was found out that she doing illegal things on that non work account to circumvent being caught. What did they focus on? Finding out out who hacked the account in the first place.
    Last edited by a completely inoffensive name; 03-15-2009 at 21:30.
    In all these papers we see a love of honest work, an aversion to shams, a caution in the enunciation of conclusions, a distrust of rash generalizations and speculations based on uncertain premises. He was never anxious to add one more guess on doubtful matters in the hope of hitting the truth, or what might pass as such for a time, but was always ready to take infinite pains in the most careful testing of every theory. With these qualities was united a modesty which forbade the pushing of his own claims and desired no reputation except the unsought tribute of competent judges.

  19. #19
    Know the dark side Member Askthepizzaguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    25,559

    Default Re: There's nothing unique about Jim Cramer

    As such, I find her to be completely inoffensive.

    Or at least, what it stands for, ACIN....
    #Winstontoostrong
    #Montytoostronger

  20. #20
    The very model of a modern Moderator Xiahou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    in the cloud.
    Posts
    9,007

    Default Re: There's nothing unique about Jim Cramer

    Quote Originally Posted by Lemur View Post
    Another article 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.

    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 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.


    or this from the Project For Excellence in Journalism: Journalism, Satire or Just Laughs? "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart," Examined
    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.
    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.
    "Don't believe everything you read online."
    -Abraham Lincoln

  21. #21
    Know the dark side Member Askthepizzaguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    25,559

    Default Re: There's nothing unique about Jim Cramer

    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.
    Last edited by Askthepizzaguy; 03-15-2009 at 23:48.
    #Winstontoostrong
    #Montytoostronger

  22. #22

    Default Re: There's nothing unique about Jim Cramer

    You can't hold Stewart responsible for the poor quality of news shows

    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

  23. #23
    Know the dark side Member Askthepizzaguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    25,559

    Default Re: There's nothing unique about Jim Cramer

    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.
    #Winstontoostrong
    #Montytoostronger

  24. #24
    Prince of Maldonia Member Toby and Kiki Champion, Goo Slasher Champion, Frogger Champion woad&fangs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    2,884

    Default Re: There's nothing unique about Jim Cramer

    Quote Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro View Post
    You can't hold Stewart responsible for the poor quality of news shows
    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.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    My top news source is still the .Org. I know I'll get every perspective when I read the backroom
    Why did the chicken cross the road?

    So that its subjects will view it with admiration, as a chicken which has the daring and courage to boldly cross the road,
    but also with fear, for whom among them has the strength to contend with such a paragon of avian virtue? In such a manner is the princely
    chicken's dominion maintained. ~Machiavelli

  25. #25
    Know the dark side Member Askthepizzaguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    25,559

    Default Re: There's nothing unique about Jim Cramer

    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.
    Last edited by Askthepizzaguy; 03-16-2009 at 00:14.
    #Winstontoostrong
    #Montytoostronger

  26. #26
    smell the glove Senior Member Major Robert Dump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    OKRAHOMER
    Posts
    7,424

    Default Re: There's nothing unique about Jim Cramer

    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.
    Baby Quit Your Cryin' Put Your Clown Britches On!!!

  27. #27
    Standing Up For Rationality Senior Member Ronin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Lisbon,Portugal
    Posts
    4,952

    Default Re: There's nothing unique about Jim Cramer

    Quote Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump View Post
    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.
    "If given the choice to be the shepherd or the sheep... be the wolf"
    -Josh Homme
    "That's the difference between me and the rest of the world! Happiness isn't good enough for me! I demand euphoria!"
    - Calvin

  28. #28
    smell the glove Senior Member Major Robert Dump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    OKRAHOMER
    Posts
    7,424

    Default Re: There's nothing unique about Jim Cramer

    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.
    Baby Quit Your Cryin' Put Your Clown Britches On!!!

  29. #29
    Ni dieu ni maître! Senior Member a completely inoffensive name's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    I live on the org, feeding off of what few thanks are tossed at my posts. It is up to you to make sure I don't starve.
    Posts
    8,614

    Default Re: There's nothing unique about Jim Cramer

    @MRD I disagree. That view is too black and white to really make sense of the situation.
    1. Stewart makes satire which is always based on the truth and facts that are presented by the media and highlights how absurd they really are.
    2. The news should be the ones to just plainly present these facts without bias and that means when interviewing someone that person must present the facts as well because otherwise the media would not be doing their job if they presented his "facts" as truth. So they also should be looking into whether or not the person being interviewed is lying.
    3. The news in actuality does none of that. This creates a terrible situation.
    4. Now ironically the only ones presenting the facts and truth in an unbiased fashion is the Stewarts' who highlight the absurdness of it all on both sides of the political spectrum.
    5. Jon has now twice called people out (Crossfire and CNBC) and has destroyed them (either by logic or by their own words). This is due to the fact that the facts presented are not unbiased and this pisses him off most likely due to the fact that he now spends his time making fun of people who present the information and not the info itself.
    6. Now this has caused the opinion to form that Jon should just label himself as journalist or just shut up altogether, which is false. Why?

    In the end Jon's job as one who creates satire should be to make fun and highlight the absurdness of the facts and truth which we take at face value everyday and not think twice about. However, the facts presented by the media are for the most part not facts but little more then kernels of truth wrapped around with bias. So Jon instead makes fun of the media itself which has over the years become increasingly worse. The worst cases of this makes him to drop his comedian cover for a second to confront them about that, because if his job is to make fun of the facts and the media is not doing their job in presenting the facts then he can't do his job the way it is supposed to be done.

    That is why at the end of the Cramer interview he tells him to go back to actual reporting so he can go back to fart jokes and funny noises. How is the satire gonna hit home among people who realize what a strange and messed up world we are living in when we can say "Yeah, Russia still has enough nukes to wipe out the entire world and we still **** up diplomatic relationships with them." and not think twice about it or attempt to change that reality into something better, when he has to spend his attention on what gives him the best comedic ammo, the media itself.

    I can't say what goes through Jon Stewarts head, but honestly if I was in his shoes I would love to be able to say that there is not much for me to make fun of today because the world is not ****** up at all any more.
    In all these papers we see a love of honest work, an aversion to shams, a caution in the enunciation of conclusions, a distrust of rash generalizations and speculations based on uncertain premises. He was never anxious to add one more guess on doubtful matters in the hope of hitting the truth, or what might pass as such for a time, but was always ready to take infinite pains in the most careful testing of every theory. With these qualities was united a modesty which forbade the pushing of his own claims and desired no reputation except the unsought tribute of competent judges.

  30. #30
    Know the dark side Member Askthepizzaguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    25,559

    Default Re: There's nothing unique about Jim Cramer

    Quote Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump View Post
    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.
    #Winstontoostrong
    #Montytoostronger

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO