The W
Views: 97621195
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
23.7.14 2252
The W - Movies & TV - Stewart vs Cramer
This thread has 8 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 5.22
Pages: 1
(2626 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (18 total)
ges7184
Lap cheong








Since: 7.1.02
From: Birmingham, AL

Since last post: 80 days
Last activity: 3 days
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.85
I guess pretty much the whole world has heard about the spat between Jon Stewart and Jim Cramer. Well, the Stewart interview with Cramer just aired and Stewart did an impressive job. It was the kind of interview that I wished we would see more of from real journalists conducted with people more important than Jim Cramer.

The interview had to be edited down, but the full version is suppose to be posted at the Daily Show website (but it's not there yet).

http://www.thedailyshow.com/

Anyone else impressed?



The Bored are already here. Idle hands are the devil's workshop. And no... we won't kill dolphins. But koalas are fair game.
Promote this thread!
Big Bad
Scrapple








Since: 4.1.02
From: Dorchester, Ontario

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 8 hours
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.79
That was a one-sided beatdown of an interview. It's too bad that Cramer took the brunt of it since he seems like a decent guy (terrible predictions aside), whereas there are much bigger, more unrepentant douchebags at CNBC who deserve it even more. coughcoughSantellicoughcough

My favourite line actually came before the interview, when they showed the clip of Cramer pounding the dough during a baking segment with Martha Stewart..."Mr. Cramer, don't you destroy enough dough on your own show?"



Kirk, crackers are a family food. Happy families. Maybe single people eat crackers, we don't know. Frankly, we don't want to know. It's a market we can do without.
Tenken347
Boudin blanc








Since: 27.2.03
From: Parts Unknown

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 2 hours
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.03
I thought it was a pretty good interview, and Stewart made a lot of salient points. The problem was, though, that Cramer seemed more interested in good PR for him and CNBC, than he did in actually addressing some of the allegations Stewart was leveling against the network. I mean, he seemed like he was just trying his hardest not to get upset or aggressive, and trying not to answer some of the harder challenges, although at the end Stewart got him to admit that he and the rest of the guys at CNBC did know about the market problems and just didn't expect it to collapse so fast. I guess what I'm saying is that I wished Cramer had been there less for damage control and more for some actual discussion of the problem.
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 10 hours
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.49
    Originally posted by Tenken347
    I guess what I'm saying is that I wished Cramer had been there less for damage control and more for some actual discussion of the problem.


CNBC exists to generate viewers, not necessarily discuss salient points. The trouble is that uninformed individuals think comedian = moron when most good ones are well-educated, and informed. Damage control is what he was there for, much as when McCain finally went on Letterman.






Perception is reality
Von Maestro
Boudin rouge








Since: 6.1.04
From: New York

Since last post: 133 days
Last activity: 5 hours
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.41
    Originally posted by ges7184
    Anyone else impressed?


Short answer, no.


Longer answer:

I am no fan of either guy, but Stewart on his high-horse and talking to Cramer the way he was talking to him was a disgrace. To curse at him and talk down to him like that was shameful & in my opinion disgraceful.

The ironic thing about Stewart beating down Cramer in the manner he was doing, is that he was doing exactly what Rick Santelli did to set off this entire CNBC vs. The Daily Show thing in the first place. Stewart is making a populist argument in front of a friendly crowd and soaking it up, just as Santelli was at the CBOT.

Cramer is a huckster, as most people are very aware. Anyone who takes stock picks from a television or radio host is asking for trouble, however, for Stewart to claim that this is CNBC's fault, when Stewart knows that CNBC exists simply to be successful & make money in the same way Comedy Central does is intellectually dishonest at best.

I am loathe to use the term, but this is "gotcha" journalism at its best/worst.
Mike Zeidler
Pepperoni








Since: 27.6.02
From: Champaign, IL

Since last post: 20 hours
Last activity: 7 hours
AIM:  
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.69
    Originally posted by Von Maestro
    I am loathe to use the term, but this is "gotcha" journalism at its best/worst.


Except Jon Stewart is not, nor does he claim to be, a journalist. It's a comedy show.



"Tattoos are the mullets of the aughts." - Mike Naimark
Leroy
Andouille








Since: 7.2.02
From: Huntington, NY

Since last post: 8 hours
Last activity: 51 min.
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.48
    Originally posted by Von Maestro
    I am no fan of either guy, but Stewart on his high-horse and talking to Cramer the way he was talking to him was a disgrace. To curse at him and talk down to him like that was shameful & in my opinion disgraceful.


See - I think it's more disgraceful to be blowing smoke up the rears of all of these CEOs for MONTHS before all of this imploded, taking their word as gospel that their companies were solvent and pitching them as good long-term investments because "CNBC has the economic experts and know what they are talking about." Jim Cramer and his colleagues at CNBC, hucksters or not, either clearly understood, or had the capacity to understand, that something nefarious was afoot - but it's not "entertaining" to tell people they are going to go broke if they don't get their money out.

    Originally posted by Von Maestro
    I am loathe to use the term, but this is "gotcha" journalism at its best/worst.


Stewart is not, nor does he claim to be, a journalist, and the fact that Jon Stewart is often mistaken for a journalist speaks more to the state of journalism in this country than it does to The Daily Show. His whole point centers around the fact that those claiming to be journalists and experts continue to fail us miserably.

(edited by Leroy on 13.3.09 1030)


We all have ways of coping. I use sex and awesomeness.
jecjr
Loukanika








Since: 22.1.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 1095 days
Last activity: 971 days
Y!:
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.00
    Originally posted by Von Maestro

    I am loathe to use the term, but this is "gotcha" journalism at its best/worst.


As has been pointed out, Jon Stewart is not a journalist, he's a comedian. And it cannot be "gotcha" anything if you know the show you are going on has been tearing you apart for a week and dares you to come on so they can rip on you some more.
Von Maestro
Boudin rouge








Since: 6.1.04
From: New York

Since last post: 133 days
Last activity: 5 hours
#9 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.41
    Originally posted by Zundian
    Except Jon Stewart is not, nor does he claim to be, a journalist. It's a comedy show.


    Originally posted by Leroy
    Stewart is not, nor does he claim to be, a journalist, and the fact that Jon Stewart is often mistaken for a journalist speaks more to the state of journalism in this country than it does to The Daily Show. His whole point centers around the fact that those claiming to be journalists and experts continue to fail us miserably.


It certainly does speak to the sad state of journalism that Jon Stewart is often mistaken for a journalist. I should have said "gotcha interview". (I told you I was loathe to use the term :-)

As far as Stewart getting to hide behind the "it's a comedy show" claim to defend treating someone in the manner he treated Cramer, is not going to fly. I don't see how Stewart talking down to, cursing & lecturing Cramer (who I have no respect for & do not want to sound as though I am defending his joke of a show) is in any way in line with a simple "comedy show". Jon Stewart often uses his position to push an agenda other than straight comedy, & ironically often resembles the pundits he loves to lampoon on his show.

Watching that clip made Stewart seem more like that yutz Bill O'Reilly, as opposed to the host of simple comedy show.
AWArulz
Knackwurst








Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 15 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#10 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.69
Interesting, though, that Stewart,and others, waited until now.

Last year, Cramer supported Obama. As recently as January, Cramer praised The President. But as soon as he doesn't...

March 9th
http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/03/12/commentary/op-eds/doc49b841003fe9c464540703.txt
    Originally posted by Jim Cramer
    In a recent, and now very famous article, (“Cramer: My Response to the White House”), Mr. Cramer expressed his dismay at President Obama’s recent policy initiatives:

    “Look at the incredible decline in the stock market, in all indices, since the inauguration of the president, with the drop accelerating when the budget plan came to light because of the massive fear and indecision the document sowed: Raising taxes on the eve of what could be a second Great Depression, destroying the profits in healthcare companies (one of the few areas still robust in the economy), tinkering with the mortgage deduction at a time when U.S. house price depreciation is behind much of the world’s morass and certainly the devastation affecting our banks, and pushing an aggressive cap and trade program that could raise the price of energy for millions of people.”


The lefty mafia is out. Hmmmm Why not a few months ago? Why now? I have it! Stewart JUST figured out there was a problem when his Limo Driver wore the same suit two days in a row.



We'll be back right after order has been restored here in the Omni Center.


“That the universe was formed by a fortuitous concourse of atoms, I will no more believe than that the accidental jumbling of the alphabet would fall into a most ingenious treatise of philosophy” - Swift

Leroy
Andouille








Since: 7.2.02
From: Huntington, NY

Since last post: 8 hours
Last activity: 51 min.
#11 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.48
    Originally posted by Von Maestro
    Jon Stewart often uses his position to push an agenda other than straight comedy, & ironically often resembles the pundits he loves to lampoon on his show.

    Watching that clip made Stewart seem more like that yutz Bill O'Reilly, as opposed to the host of simple comedy show.


Yeah, see... I completely disagree. If this were Olberman and not Stewart, I'd see your point, but Stewart is not a pundit and not a political hack. And whatever agenda Stewart has is fairly straightforward, unlike O'Reilly, who continues to claim a lack of bias in the face of all evidence to the contrary. Stewart, in his own words, admits he's a "snake oil" salesman who advertises "snake oil" - not legitimate news, punditry, or analysis.

But again, I have to go back to the point that there are very few people directly challenging Cramer and his ilk on their complicity in contributing to this mess because it served an entertainment value rather than a financial one, EVEN THOUGH they either had the knowledge or claimed to have the knowledge to give sound financial advice.

That point if far more important than Stewart's ideology or (lack of) tact.






We all have ways of coping. I use sex and awesomeness.
Reverend J Shaft
Liverwurst








Since: 25.6.03
From: Home of The Big House

Since last post: 14 days
Last activity: 15 hours
#12 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.27
    Originally posted by Zundian
      Originally posted by Von Maestro
      I am loathe to use the term, but this is "gotcha" journalism at its best/worst.


    Except Jon Stewart is not, nor does he claim to be, a journalist. It's a comedy show.


Which is why I don't give anything Stewart says any credibility whatsoever. After all, he's just a silly comedian, right? Seemed like a mean-spirited, unfunny ripfest to me. Not that Cramer wasn't stupid for going on in the first place.

Don't get me wrong, I laughed at the little tete-a-tete earlier in the week between them, and I abhor "analysts" like Cramer (even more than the people who would actually TAKE advice from a guy doing a TV show).

But Stewart interviewing the guy in front his loyal disciples is about as credible to me as if Dave Chappelle did it. Only, I'm guessing, Dave's interview would've been a lot funnier.



richcon
Linguica








Since: 2.1.02
From: Victoria, BC, Canada

Since last post: 1814 days
Last activity: 1704 days
#13 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.00
    Originally posted by AWArulz
    Interesting, though, that Stewart,and others, waited until now.

    Last year, Cramer supported Obama. As recently as January, Cramer praised The President. But as soon as he doesn't...

    March 9th
    http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/03/12/commentary/op-eds/doc49b841003fe9c464540703.txt
      Originally posted by Jim Cramer
      In a recent, and now very famous article, (“Cramer: My Response to the White House”), Mr. Cramer expressed his dismay at President Obama’s recent policy initiatives:

      “Look at the incredible decline in the stock market, in all indices, since the inauguration of the president, with the drop accelerating when the budget plan came to light because of the massive fear and indecision the document sowed: Raising taxes on the eve of what could be a second Great Depression, destroying the profits in healthcare companies (one of the few areas still robust in the economy), tinkering with the mortgage deduction at a time when U.S. house price depreciation is behind much of the world’s morass and certainly the devastation affecting our banks, and pushing an aggressive cap and trade program that could raise the price of energy for millions of people.”


    The lefty mafia is out. Hmmmm Why not a few months ago? Why now? I have it! Stewart JUST figured out there was a problem when his Limo Driver wore the same suit two days in a row.


Stewart's original rant that led to Cramer appearing wasn't aimed specifically at Cramer.

I'm not going to claim there isn't a bit of a liberal slant to the Daily Show, but they do go after Democrats more often than most Right Wing shows go after Republicans. They recently mocked Obama for essentially ripping of a George W. Bush speech about handing over control of Iraq to the Iraq army.
Mr. Boffo
Scrapple








Since: 24.3.02
From: Oshkosh, WI

Since last post: 360 days
Last activity: 321 days
#14 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.24
I'm a big fan of Stewart and the Daily Show. But yeah, pulling footage from Cramer appearing on a different show two years ago is cheap (not that I could tell exactly what he was going for with those clips). Especially funny is to hear Stewart rag on Cramer for interspersing the serious with the ridiculous. Mr. Pot, may I introduce you to Señor Kettle?

And the idea that Stewart can't be held accountable to the standards of journalism is also crazy to me. Cramer made the same argument about himself ("I'm a commentator. ... I'm not Eric Sevareid. I'm not Edward R. Murrow. I'm a guy trying to do an entertainment show about business for people to watch.")

If Stewart is a comedian, then last nights show was a failure (i.e. not funny). Obviously that's not the whole of his job. Compared to the other late night talk shows, TDS is basically edutainment.

Bottom line, after seeing the whole thing, his problem seems to be that the people from CNBC aren't impartial. That's true, but that's the state of cable news nowadays. CNBC is no different from CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News in that regard (probably the Fox Business channel as well). It's just that CNBC is biased in favor of businesses instead of in favor of a certain political party. Basically Stewart is mad that no one's keeping an eye on the ridiculous stuff going on in in business the way TDS and Colbert keep an eye on that stuff in politics. And that is too bad, but attacking CNBC for being biased isn't going to help anymore than attacking the other networks for being biased did.

I do agree with him that the culture of investing in stocks for short term gain vis a vis the stock price is probably harmful to our economy, but I don't know what anyone can do to stop that.
thecubsfan
Scrapple
Moderator








Since: 10.12.01
From: Aurora, IL

Since last post: 5 hours
Last activity: 31 min.
#15 Posted on | Instant Rating: 10.00
I think the most frustrating thing about this bit is they seemed to be arguing two different things and not really listening to each other*. Cramer seemed to want to explain how CNBC was just as blindsided as anyone else (though backed off on that), but Stewart wanted to argue the larger pattern of analysis at the network, arguing CNBC has a social responsibility to it's viewers to be more than just finical fanbase.

And really, that whole - "you're doing a dis service to your viewers with this phonyess" - that was his Crossfire bit, mostly. And it was lost on the people he was speaking to then and I don't know if it'll be heard this time either.

Based on what they've said, I don't think John Stewart would have any problem with Jim Cramer doing all the wackiness that he wants on Mad Money, Once they started promoting him as a not just a wacky guy with opinions on money but a person you must trust in times like this, that's where you lost Stewart (and probably me too.)

(* = This is why I've given up arguing.)



thecubsfan.com - luchablog
TheOldMan
Landjager








Since: 13.2.03
From: Chicago

Since last post: 23 days
Last activity: 19 days
#16 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.47
Stewart's original criticism with CNBC was with Rick "Howard Beale" Santelli, Cramer was just the guy from the network willing to come on the show.

I don't think many stockbrokers have dozens of hot stock tips for you every week, but the nature of Cramer's schtick means he's giving lots and lots of advice to his callers. Five hours a week. So there's going to be lots of embarrassing tape to splice together. That said, the format doesn't do much for Cramer's credibility, the criticism writes itself. (This was roughly Stewart's point about "Crossfire", that the presentation/gimmick overwhelmed the potential newsworthiness/utility of the show.)

I'm told CNBC's audience is approximately 250,000 generally wealthy people who invest in the markets. The wealth of the viewers allows the channel to operate with a relatively small number of people watching.

CNBC is operated separate from the NBC (MSNBC) news division. Which is not to say that they don't have journalistic standards, but there's a different standard.

There were fifteen mentions of the Stewart-Cramer 'feud' on MSNBC Thursday (per transcripts). There were no mentions of the Stewart-Cramer interview on MSNBC Friday (through Olbermann's show). CNBC, NBC and MSNBC are all owned by General Electric Corporation.



TheMASKEDComputerGeek
Chourico








Since: 7.1.02
From: Franklin, Wisconsin

Since last post: 205 days
Last activity: 16 days
AIM:  
#17 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.35
    Originally posted by Mr. Boffo
    I'm a big fan of Stewart and the Daily Show. But yeah, pulling footage from Cramer appearing on a different show two years ago is cheap (not that I could tell exactly what he was going for with those clips). Especially funny is to hear Stewart rag on Cramer for interspersing the serious with the ridiculous. Mr. Pot, may I introduce you to Señor Kettle?

    And the idea that Stewart can't be held accountable to the standards of journalism is also crazy to me. Cramer made the same argument about himself ("I'm a commentator. ... I'm not Eric Sevareid. I'm not Edward R. Murrow. I'm a guy trying to do an entertainment show about business for people to watch.")

    If Stewart is a comedian, then last nights show was a failure (i.e. not funny). Obviously that's not the whole of his job. Compared to the other late night talk shows, TDS is basically edutainment.

    Bottom line, after seeing the whole thing, his problem seems to be that the people from CNBC aren't impartial. That's true, but that's the state of cable news nowadays. CNBC is no different from CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News in that regard (probably the Fox Business channel as well). It's just that CNBC is biased in favor of businesses instead of in favor of a certain political party. Basically Stewart is mad that no one's keeping an eye on the ridiculous stuff going on in in business the way TDS and Colbert keep an eye on that stuff in politics. And that is too bad, but attacking CNBC for being biased isn't going to help anymore than attacking the other networks for being biased did.

    I do agree with him that the culture of investing in stocks for short term gain vis a vis the stock price is probably harmful to our economy, but I don't know what anyone can do to stop that.


Problem here is that the show was funny, so your argument is flawed.



Let's skip stones!
- David Wain

[html]www.getofftheshed.net/td2
JOIN THE REVOLUTION!!!
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 10 hours
#18 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.49
Too bad we seldom have a reason to get this worked up over real journalism.



Perception is reality
Thread rated: 5.22
Pages: 1
Thread ahead: The Office - "Golden Ticket"
Next thread: SOUTH PARK 1301: The Ring
Previous thread: Breaking Bad
(2626 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Went to see this last night. There were only four other people in the cinema! I totally recommend this film. You don't have to be a fan of metal music (I'm not) to appreciate all the crap that this band have to go through.
Related threads: Chocolate News - Rush(The Band) tho be guest on Colbert - Lewis Black/HBO taping - More...
The W - Movies & TV - Stewart vs CramerRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.2 seconds.