There's nothing unique about Jim Cramer

[Major Robert Dump]

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]

...

[Askthepizzaguy]

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]

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]

I don't think he has that much control over the show.

[a completely inoffensive name]

...

[Xiahou]

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]

...

[Xiahou]

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.

[Askthepizzaguy]

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.

[Strike For The South]

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]

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.

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]

*Straight into the vein*

[Major Robert Dump]

"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]

...

[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

[Spino]

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]

There appears to be an inverse relationship between amount of attention paid during the interview and amount of anti-TDS ranting...

[KukriKhan]

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]

...it isn't real anyway, right?

I say that everytime I tune into C-SPAN.

[CountArach]

Interesting poll released today

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.