There's nothing unique about Jim Cramer

[Sasaki Kojiro]

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

[Hosakawa Tito]

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]

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?

[CountArach]

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.

[HopAlongBunny]

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

[Xiahou]

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.

[Banquo's Ghost]

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]

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.

[Banquo's Ghost]

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]

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]

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.

[Xiahou]

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.

[CountArach]

*Straight into the vein*

[Sasaki Kojiro]

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]

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]

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]

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.