Jon Stewart interviews Jim Cramer

[Crown]

Does anyone else ever get the sense that Stewart is pretty frustrated that his show does a better job of calling bullshit than most mainstream journalists? It sort of seems like there is some bitterness under all of his "I'm just a comedian; this is a fake news show" protestations.

Of course there is, in the interview Stewart outright mentioned that his mother was one of the 'losers' who got fleeced by these scum bags. He's into doing what he's doing to primarily entertain, the fact that he uses the truth to do so is a bonus to him, but when the 'credible' and 'main stream' media fail to either inform or disclose the truth in anyway about something that personally affects pretty much every person and specifically someone close to him, of course he's bitter.

[SirNitram]

And now, the fallout ensues.

Link

Jon Stewart has amassed a passionate following over the years as a sharp-edged satirist, the man who punctures the balloons of the powerful with a caustic candor that reporters cannot muster.

As public furor over the economic meltdown rises, the Comedy Central star has turned not just his humor but also his full-throated outrage against financial journalists who he says aided and abetted the likes of Bear Stearns, AIG and Citigroup -- especially those who work for the nation's top business news channel.

Stewart morphed into a populist avenging angel this week, demanding to know why CNBC and its most manic personality, Jim Cramer, failed to warn the public about the risky Wall Street conduct that triggered the financial crisis.

"It's bigger than CNBC," said Jeff Jarvis, who teaches journalism at the City University of New York. "As anger rolls across the land about the mess we're in, it's also hitting people who cover the financial world. . . . CNBC is the easiest target if you're doing comedy."

In his much-ballyhooed "Daily Show" face-off with Cramer on Thursday, Stewart accused the network of peddling "snake oil."

"Listen, you knew what the banks were doing," Stewart said. "And yet were touting it for months and months -- the entire network was. So now to pretend that this was some sort of crazy, once-in-a-lifetime tsunami that no one could have seen coming was disingenuous at best and criminal at worst."

Cramer, a former hedge-fund manager known for his bombastic style, sounded apologetic at times, saying he had made mistakes and wished he and the network had done a better job. "I had a lot of CEOs lie to me on the show. It's very painful," the "Mad Money" host said. Video of the interview immediately went viral and was prominently played across the Web, giving it exposure that exceeds Stewart's television audience, which reached 2.3 million this week.

Much of the public, especially on the left, came to resent news organizations for not reporting more aggressively on the Bush administration's march to war in Iraq. Stewart's criticism might tap into similar sentiments across the political spectrum about media complacency during the housing and credit bubble, especially since news outlets were widely accused of boosterism after the late 1990s tech boom that went bust.

The showdown with Cramer came eight days after Stewart blistered CNBC for offering bland assurances about the health of investment banks and for soft interviews such as one last year with R. Allen Stanford, who was asked: "Is it fun being a billionaire?" Stanford was charged last month in an alleged $8 billion fraud.

Cramer has told colleagues he felt blindsided by Stewart's hostile approach. But many CNBC staffers were furious with Cramer yesterday for failing to defend the network's reporting or to criticize Stewart's video clips as selectively edited or out of context. CNBC declined all interview requests, saying in a statement: "CNBC produces more than 150 hours of live television a week that includes more than 850 interviews in the service of exposing all sides of every critical financial and economic issue. We are proud of our record."

Cramer used an analogy to the college basketball playoffs to depict himself as the underdog. "When you are a Big East team and you are 16th seed in the Western Regional, you just want to leave with your head intact," he said by e-mail. "When I walked out, I checked in the mirror. It was still attached. So I am thrilled to have been in the tourney."

Business journalists generally failed to anticipate the magnitude of the Wall Street collapse, reporting elements of the growing risks but rarely trumpeting the threat on the front pages or network newscasts. And CNBC, a fixture on Wall Street, is hardly the only news organization to fall short in the run-up to the crisis.

Fortune magazine, for instance, reported in 2006 on "How Dick Fuld transformed Lehman from Wall Street also-ran to super-hot machine." Fuld, the CEO, led Lehman Bros. into bankruptcy. Most news outlets ignored or minimized a decision by the Securities and Exchange Commission to rely on investment banks to police themselves, a move cited by the New York Times last fall as a key element in the debacle that followed. At the same time, the Wall Street Journal, among others, highlighted the risks at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, now controlled by the government, and such columnists as Steven Pearlstein of The Washington Post and Gretchen Morgenson of the Times warned about massive credit risks.

CNBC reported early last year that AIG's mounting debt load cast doubt on its assurances of creditworthiness. Cramer warned viewers in October to get out of the stock market if they might need the money in the next five years. But the network also hosts a parade of corporate executives, fund managers and investment analysts with a vested interest in talking up stocks.

Stewart's video montage last week showed CNBC staffers and guests appearing to rule out the notion that Lehman, AIG and Merrill Lynch could face bankruptcy, as happened soon afterward. Cramer was seen repeatedly touting Bear Stearns as a good buy in the weeks before the company collapsed.

Stewart has long used quick-cut editing -- a technique that has been copied by some news programs -- and liberals cheered when the target was the Bush administration and the war Stewart dubbed "Mess O'Potamia." But he has periodically erupted about what he views as the media's shortcomings.

At last year's Democratic convention, Stewart called cable news a "brutish, slow-witted beast" whose practitioners are too cozy with the officials they cover.

ad_icon

"People view him now as a truth-teller, not a joke-teller," says Jon Friedman, media columnist for Marketwatch.com. "His satire goes beyond anything that Tina Fey did with Sarah Palin." Stewart, he says, has turned CNBC into "the scapegoat for the recession."

Steve Friedman, a former top executive at NBC and CBS, called Stewart "a 2009 version of Will Rogers -- a social commentator who pokes holes in people who don't usually get holes poked in them." He said CNBC had not been damaged by the ridicule: "They do some very good work, they do some very shoddy work. But if you're looking at how your stocks are doing, that's the place to go."

With such stars as Maria Bartiromo, Erin Burnett and David Faber, CNBC reaches a small but affluent audience -- 282,000 viewers in the first two months of this year -- who appreciate both the real-time financial data and the banter on "Squawk Box" and other shows. Stewart accused CNBC of catering to its well-heeled viewers, asking: "Which side are they on?"

Online reaction tended to split along partisan lines. National Review's Mark Hemingway wrote that "Cramer's appearance on the show . . . was nothing short of a predictable sandbagging, with Stewart hopped up on faux indignation." But James Moore said on the Huffington Post that Stewart "has brought back context to journalism by making people in our drive-by culture responsible for their words and even actions."

Why the WaPo decided to encourage the National Review of all trashmags in the end, I have no idea.

Cramer fell into a trap Stewart's done before. Stewart soft-handles politicos, for all the jabs and satire, because they're not the target of his show's mockery.

It is an open mockery of 'news shows'.

Cramer is exactly the kind of buffoon the Stewart and Colbert duo are meant to counter. Well. Exactly the kind of buffon plus market manipulation.

[Crown]

I love this part;

But many CNBC staffers were furious with Cramer yesterday for failing to defend the network's reporting or to criticize Stewart's video clips as selectively edited or out of context. CNBC declined all interview requests, saying in a statement: "CNBC produces more than 150 hours of live television a week that includes more than 850 interviews in the service of exposing all sides of every critical financial and economic issue. We are proud of our record."

"Deny, deny, deny ... "

Man, these guys take the playa attitude to being presented with their own fuckups don't they?


P.S. I love YouTube!

[Darth Wong]

It's pretty sickening how the media thinks it gets off the hook if its coverage was not one hundred percent positive before the crash, when the real question is: "why the fuck were you people mindlessly taking corporate press releases and CEO statements at face value when you're supposedly journalists?" And the most salient question of all is: "Do you recognize that your first ethical responsibility is to the public, not to your advertisers or the people who give you interviews?"

[Steel]

There was even a short section on this on the BBC news last night. I thought the interview was excellent, and this really highlights how the majority of american news is just 'entertainment' and trying to make money for/from your sponsors without much regard for actual journalism.

[Johonebesus]

It's pretty sickening how the media thinks it gets off the hook if its coverage was not one hundred percent positive before the crash, when the real question is: "why the fuck were you people mindlessly taking corporate press releases and CEO statements at face value when you're supposedly journalists?" And the most salient question of all is: "Do you recognize that your first ethical responsibility is to the public, not to your advertisers or the people who give you interviews?"

A lot of them would be able to honestly answer with a straight face, "no, my primary obligation is to the shareholders, for Time-Warner/Viacom/GE/etc. is a corporation whose raison d'être is to make money for the investors, not worry about some 'public good'." After all, the courts have ruled that broadcast journalists have no legal obligation to report the truth. They can report lies as news if they want.

[Knife]

It's pretty sickening how the media thinks it gets off the hook if its coverage was not one hundred percent positive before the crash, when the real question is: "why the fuck were you people mindlessly taking corporate press releases and CEO statements at face value when you're supposedly journalists?" And the most salient question of all is: "Do you recognize that your first ethical responsibility is to the public, not to your advertisers or the people who give you interviews?"

Same problem with regular journalists, they school with, work close to, go to parties with, marry, date and fuck with, or were really just retired or ex- the people they report on.

[Axis Kast]

Jim Cramer, "the face" of the current crisis? The man runs no less an edutainment vehicle than Stewart's own The Daily Show.

Appearing on Crossfire, Stewart didn't provide trenchant criticism of the show. Instead, he sat down, made a few snarky comments, and let Carson hang himself by going scared. People were going to reason, "Well, if Carson loses his cool, then Stewart must be correct." Who needs evidence? (And whether it was there or not, Stewart gave none, as far as I could tell.)

Stewart says, "I'm here to confront you, because we, the people, need help."

And then they ask, "What, what do you do, John?"

And Stewart responds, "I'm a comedian. I've never assumed the mantle of social responsibility."

When they point out that he misspent his interview with Kerry, he reacts with: "We need what you do. This is such a great opportunity." With a straight face, no less. In other words, we need somebody who is going to hold politicians accountable... but it isn't Jon Stewart.

Stewart's strongest argument of the night was that it was folly "to turn a linear problem into a geometric one" by creating a Gordian knot of financial instruments that nobody could unravel. But he forgot to indict the other half of the problem: the U.S. Government, which is even now insisting that home ownership is a bastion of our culture, and which hasn't imposed the stringent standards on bank loans that kept us out of these messes before the 1980s.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Which is because of a worship of financiers as Olympian gods, a culture which has been flagshipped by the media networks. Which are the true source of parody and satire on Stewart's behalf. The government was only responsible for this mess in that they allowed themselves to become yet another servant of Wall Street, with its lying scams. If you were to believe their bullshit, encouraging home ownership was not such a bad idea. Its total bullshit from you and the rest of the right-wing (waah waah we don't like Stewart because he made fun of our man and especially our pets like Iraq!) that somehow a comedian or anyone else cannot criticize people who have chosen as their life's work to be a public official or media personality or captain of industry - these people fought long and hard for the fame, money, and power, and completely abdicate their ethical responsibilities. And your pithy response is, "well, he hasn't tried to assume that moral responsibility before criticizing them, so he's no different." Jon Stewart's "obligation" to me is bupkis compared to George W. Bush and Jim Cramer (who, despite your equivocation, runs a edutainment vehicle which encourages people to spend their life and personal savings on major cable news airtime, not a mockumentary on a comedy entertainment channel) and Wolf Blitzer is trivial.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Appearing on Crossfire, Stewart didn't provide trenchant criticism of the show. Instead, he sat down, made a few snarky comments, and let Carson hang himself by going scared. People were going to reason, "Well, if Carson loses his cool, then Stewart must be correct." Who needs evidence? (And whether it was there or not, Stewart gave none, as far as I could tell.)

Stewart says, "I'm here to confront you, because we, the people, need help."

And then they ask, "What, what do you do, John?"

And Stewart responds, "I'm a comedian. I've never assumed the mantle of social responsibility."

When they point out that he misspent his interview with Kerry, he reacts with: "We need what you do. This is such a great opportunity." With a straight face, no less. In other words, we need somebody who is going to hold politicians accountable... but it isn't Jon Stewart.

Did you even watch the interview? Because your summary of it is wildly inaccurate. If you were paying attention, you will notice it was Carlson that brought up the idea of social responsibility, and Stewart responded in kind. Not only that, but you are utterly ignoring Stewart's point, which is valid. He is a fucking comedian. Like it or not, he doesn't HAVE social responsibility; at least no where near the level of those who portray themselves as journalists, or politicians themselves. Your argument is idiotic, it's like saying George Carlin was a sell-out because he didn't actively try to change society, but just made "snarky comments" about it from the sidelines. That's the whole damned point. And if you really can't tell the difference between a comedian (who makes no designs on being anything else) and a politician, businessman, journalist, or whatever, that really says something about your capacity for critical reasoning.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Exactly. These people wanted the power, fame, influence, and big bucks - the least they can do is mind their ethical obligations and their personal responsibility accordingly. It is supposed to be that these people take the biggest risks and have the largest responsibilities. It sure does not look that way from here.

[Pablo Sanchez]

And your pithy response is, "well, he hasn't tried to assume that moral responsibility before criticizing them, so he's no different." Jon Stewart's "obligation" to me is bupkis compared to George W. Bush and Jim Cramer (who, despite your equivocation, runs a edutainment vehicle which encourages people to spend their life and personal savings on major cable news airtime, not a mockumentary on a comedy entertainment channel) and Wolf Blitzer is trivial.

The fact that any news figure even suggests that Stewart bears this responsibility is a scathing indictment of their own job performance. The Daily Show has never sold itself as anything but satire, and none of its contributors have ever pretended to be anything but comedians and performance artists (except maybe Mo Rocca). Tucker Carlson, by arguing that Stewart had the responsibilities of a real media pundit, was effectively admitting that he and his colleagues had completely abdicated their duties and the best available replacement was a comedian. And when people throw that smear at Stewart, he happily accepts it--on Crossfire he pointed out that his timeslot followed crank-calling muppets. I get the impression that part of Stewart's unhappiness with the media is not just that he wants them to do a better job, it's that he doesn't want to be doing their job, because he has an idea of what the press is supposed to do and knows that he's neither willing nor able to do it.

[Darth Wong]

Jim Cramer, "the face" of the current crisis? The man runs no less an edutainment vehicle than Stewart's own The Daily Show.

Tell me, is this "edutainment vehicle" run on something called a "comedy network", or is it on something which bills itself as a "financial news network"?

Appearing on Crossfire, Stewart didn't provide trenchant criticism of the show.

What would you consider to be "trenchant criticism of the show"? Could you explain how Stewart's comments were off the mark?

When they point out that he misspent his interview with Kerry, he reacts with: "We need what you do. This is such a great opportunity." With a straight face, no less. In other words, we need somebody who is going to hold politicians accountable... but it isn't Jon Stewart.

So ... Jon Stewart's criticism of self-proclaimed "news networks" is off the mark because he himself does not do a better job than they do? Do you honestly not understand what's wrong with this? Or do you simply internalize right-wing "talking points" until you cannot see what they are any more?

Stewart's strongest argument of the night was that it was folly "to turn a linear problem into a geometric one" by creating a Gordian knot of financial instruments that nobody could unravel. But he forgot to indict the other half of the problem: the U.S. Government, which is even now insisting that home ownership is a bastion of our culture, and which hasn't imposed the stringent standards on bank loans that kept us out of these messes before the 1980s.

The US government was only doing what the financial markets wanted them to do. Blaming them for doing the bidding of the financial markets is fair enough in the sense that they failed, but it does not get the financial markets or their Ayn Rand philosophies off the hook, nor does it exonerate the news networks which utterly failed in their responsibility to sound the alarm about this sort of thing.

Since when can journalists foist off their own responsibilities by saying that the government should have done a better job? THE GODDAMNED JOURNALISTS' JOB IS TO TELL US WHEN THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT DOING ITS JOB.

[SirNitram]

Well it's not like CNBC is a news network(It's corporate chain of command, IIRC, never touches the 'news' portions of the company.), so they're not surprising to be as reality-challenged as Fox News. Speaking of which, Stewart opening mocking the High Priests Of Wall Street apparently loosened some resistance to criticism. Behold, TIME.

CNBC: Sticking Up For The Big Guy

On the March 9 edition of CNBC's Squawk Box, Becky Quick was interviewing Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffett when the Oracle of Omaha expressed support for the Obama Administration's mortgage bailout. "Becky," co-host Joe Kernen broke in, "tell Warren you're mad that you've done all the right things and all these other people are going to get bailed out." Buffett replied, "There's nothing wrong with being mad, Joe. It's just that there are times when you're mad about something that you've got to overcome the emotion."

That is why Buffett is not in the cable-news business. For as the economy nose-dives, CNBC — the TV darling of the turn-of-the-century stock boom — is proudly letting the emotion overcome it. (Read about Buffett's tell-all biography.)

In February, reporter Rick Santelli launched into an on-air rant against helping "losers" with their mortgages, a viral-video hit that made Santelli the poor man's Rush Limbaugh — or is that the rich man's? Kudlow Report host Larry Kudlow opined that President Obama "is waging war against capital." Stock picker and professional gasket blower Jim Cramer trained his bulging eyes on Washington, accusing Obama of "the greatest wealth destruction I've ever seen by a President."

To watch CNBC today is to enter an alternative universe, where élites are populists, Wall Street is Main Street and bank executives are the oppressed. It's not surprising that a voice of opposition to the new Administration would emerge. But who would have thought it would be on a channel not owned by Rupert Murdoch?

In a way, CNBC has no choice but to become political, since the economy itself has. And CNBC faces the same dilemma as the rest of the media: If psychology drives the economy, when does reporting bad news become creating bad news? How do you walk the line between desperate cheerleading and reckless ranting?

CNBC's answer has been to dive off both sides of the line at once. On the silver-lining-hunt side, its straight-news interviewers now spend uncomfortable days (even when not talking about parent company GE's woes) pleading with gloom-saying guests to declare a bottom to the market or find stock picks. "Do you have just one?" Steve Liesman asked an investment adviser, almost plaintively.

On the ranting side, it has increasingly pinned the state of the economy on the two-month-old Administration, with Cramer offering recommendations to "Obama-proof your portfolio," a phrase that now comes up regularly on CNBC's air. (In response, The Daily Show aired a clip reel of the network's bad calls during the bubble, suggesting viewers might prefer to CNBC-proof their portfolios.)

CNBC's reaction is colored by its stressed-out day trader's focus on the short term. When ordinary people think about the economy, they think about jobs, college, retirement. Sure, the stock market affects them in the long run — but so do job security and the threat of getting wiped out by health-care bills. When CNBC considers the economy, it means Wall Street's numbers that day, that hour, that minute. CNBC may pay lip service to the long term, but it has the time horizon of a fruit fly.

This means that CNBC looks at everything, particularly politics, in terms of how it will affect "the Market." The commentators on CNBC murmur about the Market as if it were the Island on Lost: a mystic force that must be placated, lest it become angry and punish us. "The Market doesn't like ..." "What the Market wants to see is ..."

And, oooh, is the Market cranky at Obama! The Market doesn't like raising taxes on the wealthy (even if Buffett does). The Market doesn't like government health-care reform or cap-and-trade environmental policy or big budgets or limiting bonuses at bailed-out banks. And don't get the Market started on bank nationalization. That ticks the Market off!

It is as if — between MSNBC and CNBC — NBC News were trying to own the liberal and conservative voices of cable news. But CNBC's is a much different strain of conservatism from Sarah Palin's or Bill O'Reilly's: it is urban, club room and Mammon-oriented rather than small town, VFW hall and God-oriented. It's an ideology not exclusively beholden to party (Cramer voted for Obama), but it's an ideology nonetheless.

It's also an ideology that you'd think, given the track record of trusted financial institutions, people would be a little wary of crowing in public nowadays. But ratings are up. As the rest of the country stews over the mismanagement of insurers and banks, there's still a small, demographically appealing niche for talking heads fulminating against the "demonization" of business and being in favor of laissez-faire government.

Hey, somebody's gotta stick up for the little guy. Even, or especially, when he's the big guy.

When watching a network is compared to stepping into an alternate reality, you know full well it's gone mad.

[Ziggy Stardust]

But CNBC's is a much different strain of conservatism from Sarah Palin's or Bill O'Reilly's: it is urban, club room and Mammon-oriented rather than small town, VFW hall and God-oriented.

I think this is a rather elegant expression of the dichotomy in American politics. Democrats vs. Republicans is not liberal vs. conservative, but rather different branches of conservative thought battling it out. They both follow the same basic logic in their policy-making. Rather disappointing that it takes a television critic (the author of that Time article, Mr. Poniewozik) to figure it out and express it so masterfully.

[Axis Kast]

Tell me, is this "edutainment vehicle" run on something called a "comedy network", or is it on something which bills itself as a "financial news network"?

Not until you address the original problem: that Jon Stewart pinned the tail on the wrong donkey.

What's even worse is that Stewart's rejoinder - one shouldn't trust CEOs because they're essentially privateers - can be said of Wall Street in general. If it's legal, they're going to do it. Complain all you like about the spirit of the laws, and about what's common and decent, and about the perfidy of withholding information. I have no problem with insisting that some people should be blackballed because their behavior was just despicable, even if there are valid explanations about why we can't charge them with a crime. But much of the trouble still has to with the fact that government adopted certain principles that turned out to be flawed. And Cramer certainly isn't the one to be held accountable. He's just good fodder for Stewart.

What would you consider to be "trenchant criticism of the show"? Could you explain how Stewart's comments were off the mark?

When somebody says, "You don't ask the hard questions," I generally expect examples of what they are asking, to help prove the point that it's all just been barking up the wrong tree. What Stewart did was to state a grievance, but never give it any meat. Instead, he let the show's hosts embarrass themselves. Entertaining, but unconvincing.

So ... Jon Stewart's criticism of self-proclaimed "news networks" is off the mark because he himself does not do a better job than they do? Do you honestly not understand what's wrong with this? Or do you simply internalize right-wing "talking points" until you cannot see what they are any more?

Nice work with the strawmen. I didn't say that Stewart needed to do a "better job" than anybody. I did say that he should be considered irresponsible. Stewart makes arguments about what society needs. About what it thirsts for. His criticism that "news networks" have failed isn't off the mark. It's just difficult to stomach with a straight face because he's talking out of both sides of his mouth at once. Stewart can throw stones at whomever he likes. I contend that Cramer is an unsuitable target, chosen because he was an easy mark. He may be culpable of fraud, or whatever, but he's certainly not "the face of the crisis," as some have alleged. That's absolute garbage. I also assert that Stewart, if correct, has cast aspersion on himself by going on all these shows and calling others to task when the opportunities for some corrective have gone in -- and then out -- his door. Crossfire can be all the bad it likes. Stewart doesn't gain points just because they lose some. And I can criticize Stewart perfectly well without trying to defend Crossfire. If somebody says, "I allege that X is a no-good, rotten cheat," X may be all those things. It still isn't going to be a sound argument without evidence, however. What I mean to say is that Stewart would get an F if he handed in a scrap of paper saying, "Crossfire is a bad show because it neglects social responsibility." That's a thesis statement. I wanted to hear something more.

The US government was only doing what the financial markets wanted them to do. Blaming them for doing the bidding of the financial markets is fair enough in the sense that they failed, but it does not get the financial markets or their Ayn Rand philosophies off the hook, nor does it exonerate the news networks which utterly failed in their responsibility to sound the alarm about this sort of thing.

We need more government intervention. We need the banks to begin instituting more stringent requirements on loans. And will somebody please get on television and remind the public that purchasing a house isn't a social requirement? For that matter, something should also be done about the racially-oriented marketing mechanisms of loan specialists -- those "Get cash now!" schemes that target minorities and promise "no-consequence" access to cash, on the spot. In this instance, I firmly believe that the government can play a beneficial education role, even saving people from themselves.

Since when can journalists foist off their own responsibilities by saying that the government should have done a better job? THE GODDAMNED JOURNALISTS' JOB IS TO TELL US WHEN THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT DOING ITS JOB.

Another strawman. Nobody said that journalists can shed responsibility to the government. I said that Stewart was wrong to credit Cramer with being the face of anything, and that he completely ignored the fact that there was a regulatory problem. The government shouldn't have needed a crusading pack of muck-rackers (useful as they might have been) to indicate that there would be consequences if a bunch of bad loans were made, or to notice that there were problems.

Stewart doesn't "bear responsibility" for anything but being a hypocrite. If we "need" all of these opportunities to hold people to task so badly, he has no place insisting he's just a comedian. It doesn't take a genius to realize that when Stewart gets up on Crossfire and butts heads with Cramer, he's trying to do some kind of social service, rather than just play strict, straight-up comedian. He had grievances and he wanted to use his wit as an anvil. He ended up getting some laughs. But Crossfire sank itself, and Cramer is a nice target, but ultimately not someone most people hold responsibility for our woes.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Not until you address the original problem: that Jon Stewart pinned the tail on the wrong donkey.

Then who is the right donkey? If it's not the businessmen, politicans, and journalists he's been attacking, who is it?

What's even worse is that Stewart's rejoinder - one shouldn't trust CEOs because they're essentially privateers - can be said of Wall Street in general. If it's legal, they're going to do it. Complain all you like about the spirit of the laws, and about what's common and decent, and about the perfidy of withholding information. I have no problem with insisting that some people should be blackballed because their behavior was just despicable, even if there are valid explanations about why we can't charge them with a crime. But much of the trouble still has to with the fact that government adopted certain principles that turned out to be flawed. And Cramer certainly isn't the one to be held accountable. He's just good fodder for Stewart.

Did you watch the same interview as everybody else? Where did John Stewart complain about the spirit of the laws or anything like that? Do you even know what his argument is? He is saying that the financial journalists, whose job it was to tell people what was going on with the market, either lied to those people for their own benefit or just payed lip service to the people who were lying to them. They didn't do their job, which resulted in people losing thousands of dollars on the stock market, and contributed directly to the financial crisis. Put this into another context: what if Woodward and Burnstein had help cover up Watergate because they somehow benefited from the wiretapping and whatnot?

When somebody says, "You don't ask the hard questions," I generally expect examples of what they are asking, to help prove the point that it's all just been barking up the wrong tree.

I don't even understand what you are trying to argue. Are you saying John Stewart didn't ask hard questions?

What Stewart did was to state a grievance, but never give it any meat.

Just by being a comedian who asked tougher questions than ANY of the financial journalists have been for a decade DOES give the grievance meat.

Instead, he let the show's hosts embarrass themselves. Entertaining, but unconvincing.

He called the hosts on their shit, and they couldn't defend themselves. If you don't find that convincing, you're an apologist at best and an idiot at worst.

Nice work with the strawmen. I didn't say that Stewart needed to do a "better job" than anybody. I did say that he should be considered irresponsible.

You said "In other words, we need somebody who is going to hold politicians accountable... but it isn't Jon Stewart." You are implying that HE has a responsibility to hold the politicans accountable.

Stewart makes arguments about what society needs. About what it thirsts for.

No, he makes arguments about how the people who called themselves journalists failed to act in accordance with the ethics of the profession, and as a result fucked a lot of people over.

His criticism that "news networks" have failed isn't off the mark. It's just difficult to stomach with a straight face because he's talking out of both sides of his mouth at once. Stewart can throw stones at whomever he likes. I contend that Cramer is an unsuitable target, chosen because he was an easy mark.

Whose a better target, that would actually agree to go on the show?

He may be culpable of fraud, or whatever, but he's certainly not "the face of the crisis," as some have alleged. That's absolute garbage.

How so? Cramer made a lot of people to lose money, for no reason other than not to rat out his old pals on Wall Street. He admitted so much in the interview. Hell, for all we know he was getting some of the money himself. Nobody accused him of being "the face of the crisis," but remember Cramer was the one with the motto "IN CRAMER WE TRUST." Do you REALLY not see why Cramer is such a perfect example of a journalist who lacks integrity?

I also assert that Stewart, if correct, has cast aspersion on himself by going on all these shows and calling others to task when the opportunities for some corrective have gone in -- and then out -- his door.

Is this even a fucking sentence? What are you trying to say?

Crossfire can be all the bad it likes.

You really don't think shows that are ostensibly news sources shouldn't hold themselves up to some standard? Do you really think that the media can just be as lazy and stupid as it wants to be and nobody should complain?

Stewart doesn't gain points just because they lose some.

Since when is this about points? Why do you insist on strawmanning the entire issue?

And I can criticize Stewart perfectly well without trying to defend Crossfire.

You just defended Crossfire earlier in this same paragraph by saying they can be as bad as they like and shouldn't have to face criticism.

If somebody says, "I allege that X is a no-good, rotten cheat," X may be all those things. It still isn't going to be a sound argument without evidence, however. What I mean to say is that Stewart would get an F if he handed in a scrap of paper saying, "Crossfire is a bad show because it neglects social responsibility." That's a thesis statement. I wanted to hear something more.

Do you really expect him to go onto the show with a list of times and places these people said specific things? He isn't presenting a doctoral thesis, it's a fucking INTERVIEW. Name one interview you have ever seen where people give a fucking bibliography of sources. The actions of the journalists he was talking about are well documented and widely known, and the fact that they were utterly unable to defend themselves against his accusations his damning.

Another strawman. Nobody said that journalists can shed responsibility to the government.

You said earlier that Stewart bore the responsibility to hold politicians accountable.

I said that Stewart was wrong to credit Cramer with being the face of anything, and that he completely ignored the fact that there was a regulatory problem. The government shouldn't have needed a crusading pack of muck-rackers (useful as they might have been) to indicate that there would be consequences if a bunch of bad loans were made, or to notice that there were problems.

Once again, did you even watch the interview? Stewart says MULTIPLE times that Cramer is NOT the face of the problem, but just a prominent example of it. The regulatory problem is a non sequitir to Stewart's argument; that the journalists didn't do their job. It doesn't matter who was responsible for the mess, the issue at heart is that the journalists knew about it but didn't tell anyone.

Stewart doesn't "bear responsibility" for anything but being a hypocrite.

You have failed to show us what the fuck Stewart did that was so hypocritical.

If we "need" all of these opportunities to hold people to task so badly, he has no place insisting he's just a comedian.

He IS just a comedian, asshole. Journalists are SUPPOSED to be the ones who hold people to task. It is their fucking job. If you don't do your job, you should get fired. But those journalists, like Cramer, are still being portrayed as honest and reliable sources. Stewart is calling them out for it.

It doesn't take a genius to realize that when Stewart gets up on Crossfire and butts heads with Cramer, he's trying to do some kind of social service, rather than just play strict, straight-up comedian. He had grievances and he wanted to use his wit as an anvil.

You are acting like this is a sudden betrayal on Stewart's part. You do realize that The Daily Show has ALWAYS been heavily political and critical? The only difference with the Cramer interview is that an entire episode was dedicated to it. Stewart has had interviews before that were more serious than not. He's had plenty of them, including several heated ones.

[Axis Kast]

Ziggy. I make three points. Count 'em. Three.

First, that when appearing on Crossfire, Stewart propounded a thesis -- the social irresponsibility of the hosts, who failed to use their platform appropriately -- which he did not expand upon with evidence.

Second, that Cramer -- whom I happen to recall him dubbing "the face of this," although I could well be wrong -- made sense as a guest, but really was an inappropriate stand-in for a much larger problem with far more worthy "bad guys." (And granted, Stewart will probably never get to cut words with the truly culpable.)

Third, that Stewart, who invoked great public need for somebody who would ask the really hard-hitting questions, is a hypocrite for turning to the, "I'm just a comedian compared to you!" argument. This doesn't make his criticism of the media less valid. It just points to the fact that Stewart himself is no longer a funny man only. The interviews with Crossfire and Cramer were satire more than "simple" comedy. Stewart is making judgments that go beyond irony and entertainment; he's become a political voice, and, on more than one occasion, a herald of social responsibility. He is taking these people to task, and making them look awful. They may deserve it. Apparently, Cramer deserved it. But he's being disingenuous when he replies that his is not the responsibility.

He's also just silly to complain that Cramer does anything but info/edutainment, even if he is on a "financial news network." The network has a responsibility to police itself, but people should not be gullible enough just to "take Cramer's word for it" -- particularly if Cramer has to avoid being gullible enough to take his friends' words for it in the business world.

[Terralthra]

Second, that Cramer -- whom I happen to recall him dubbing "the face of this," although I could well be wrong -- made sense as a guest, but really was an inappropriate stand-in for a much larger problem with far more worthy "bad guys." (And granted, Stewart will probably never get to cut words with the truly culpable.

Yes, Jon Stewart did say, "You[Cramer]'re the face of this." Oh, and there was a "not" right after "'You're."

[Kodiak]

Second, that Cramer -- whom I happen to recall him dubbing "the face of this," although I could well be wrong -- made sense as a guest, but really was an inappropriate stand-in for a much larger problem with far more worthy "bad guys." (And granted, Stewart will probably never get to cut words with the truly culpable.

Yes, Jon Stewart did say, "You[Cramer]'re the face of this." Oh, and there was a "not" right after "'You're."

Stewart acknowledged that Cramer had become the face of the entire "feud" and incompetence in financial journalism, which he also admitted was "unfortunate".

[Terralthra]

Second, that Cramer -- whom I happen to recall him dubbing "the face of this," although I could well be wrong -- made sense as a guest, but really was an inappropriate stand-in for a much larger problem with far more worthy "bad guys." (And granted, Stewart will probably never get to cut words with the truly culpable.

Yes, Jon Stewart did say, "You[Cramer]'re the face of this." Oh, and there was a "not" right after "'You're."

Stewart acknowledged that Cramer had become the face of the entire "feud" and incompetence in financial journalism, which he also admitted was "unfortunate".

Ah, you're right. He did say that Cramer had become the face of it, but I think he was more talking about the media playing up the Stewart v. Cramer retorts, rather than anything Stewart was accusing Cramer of being.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Stewart seemed to be saying that Cramer was being MADE the face of it unfairly, and that others were more responsible.

[Ziggy Stardust]

First, that when appearing on Crossfire, Stewart propounded a thesis -- the social irresponsibility of the hosts, who failed to use their platform appropriately -- which he did not expand upon with evidence.

Thanks for ignoring my post. What kind of evidence were you looking for him to produce? The fact that he made an accusation of Crossfire which the hosts COULD NOT REFUTE is telling.

Second, that Cramer -- whom I happen to recall him dubbing "the face of this," although I could well be wrong -- made sense as a guest, but really was an inappropriate stand-in for a much larger problem with far more worthy "bad guys." (And granted, Stewart will probably never get to cut words with the truly culpable.)

As Stewart said, it was the media at large that blew the 'Stewart v Cramer' thing out of proportion.

Third, that Stewart, who invoked great public need for somebody who would ask the really hard-hitting questions, is a hypocrite for turning to the, "I'm just a comedian compared to you!" argument.

How is it hypocritical? When has Stewart ever claimed that he was the one who is supposed to ask the hard-hitting questions?

It just points to the fact that Stewart himself is no longer a funny man only.

He's ALWAYS been political. Just because it only offends you now doesn't change that.

But he's being disingenuous when he replies that his is not the responsibility.

No, he's not. How is he being disingenuous? It's NOT HIS FUCKING JOB. But it IS the journalists. And they didn't do it. Is this really too complicated for you to grasp?

The network has a responsibility to police itself, but people should not be gullible enough just to "take Cramer's word for it"

So it's the people's fault that somebody who calls himself an expert gave them shitty advice? As Darth Wong said earlier in this thread, and you predictably ignored, how is this any different from getting advice from someone who claims to be a doctor that makes you even more sick? You would expect the self-proclaimed doctor to be held accountable. This is the same damned thing. Are you really too stupid to see that it isn't the responsibility of the public at large to thoroughly fact-check and research everything that they hear on the news before they act?

particularly if Cramer has to avoid being gullible enough to take his friends' words for it in the business world.

Golden mean. Cramer is supposed to be a journalist. Journalists are supposed to find the truth, not act as mindless PR people to the folks they are supposed to be covering. It's his FUCKING JOB to find out if what they are telling him is true or not. As I said in my previous post (which you, AGAIN, ignored), what if Woodward and Burnstein had just printed a story that said nothing happened at Watergate because Nixon said so?

Either concede the point or address any of the dozens of arguments that have been made against you in this thread. So far you have ignored virtually all of them.

[Axis Kast]

quote] Thanks for ignoring my post. What kind of evidence were you looking for him to produce? The fact that he made an accusation of Crossfire which the hosts COULD NOT REFUTE is telling. [/quote]

No problem at all. When your post doesn’t address what I’ve actually said, it’s what I’m going to be apt to do.

What kind of evidence? How about exactly what Carson tried to do in return: specify a particular interview, and highlight questions he found lacking?

Although this was not a court of law, the same standard applies. When Stewart makes an accusation, it is not up to the hosts to provide evidence to the contrary, though they may be guilty. As I said before, if Stewart were submitting, “Crossfire has been socially irresponsible,” as his thesis, he would receive failing marks if that assertion was not substantiated with some evidentiary examples.

As Stewart said, it was the media at large that blew the 'Stewart v Cramer' thing out of proportion.

Fair enough.

How is it hypocritical? When has Stewart ever claimed that he was the one who is supposed to ask the hard-hitting questions?

Because Stewart has identified a collective need, and yet holds himself aloof from a notion of collective responsibility even as he has taken advantage of a comedic platform to catapult himself into the limelight as a hard-hitting critical avenger.

Stewart has made some valid criticisms. He may have been right across Crossfire, for all I know. (I never watched the show.) He was certainly giving the old one-two to Cramer, and made a great point about the fact that we went from a linear financial system to a Gordian knot that nobody understood, and which we irresponsibility placed our trust in, led by folks who claimed to have a handle on it all, and who continue to insist that we should respect them precisely because they are “in the know.”

But Stewart is now a politician. He isn’t “just a comedian.” And CBS and other news networks aren’t just founts of social responsibility.

He's ALWAYS been political. Just because it only offends you now doesn't change that.

Nice strawman. Give it up. I’m not going to let you argue with me about opinions I’ve never expressed.

No, he's not. How is he being disingenuous? It's NOT HIS FUCKING JOB. But it IS the journalists. And they didn't do it. Is this really too complicated for you to grasp?

If he’s invoking collective need, then he’s now got to grapple with collective responsibility.

And who said that a journalist must be a crusader for the moral good? Some do aspire to be. Society is well-served when top journalists chase down fact with the dogged – pardon the pun – determination of bloodhounds on the scent. But news has become a business like any other. They give the public what it seems to want, or at least buys hand over fist: fear. The “mainstream” news media is a giant marketing mechanism.

Cramer in particular is edutainment/infotainment. And he’s certainly not the kind of person that somebody should be watching and putting faith in. Because people do trust him blindly, it is ethnically appropriate for him to be aware of that. But this does not, ultimately, exonerate anybody who just goes and does the will of the big box of transistors in their living room.

So it's the people's fault that somebody who calls himself an expert gave them shitty advice? As Darth Wong said earlier in this thread, and you predictably ignored, how is this any different from getting advice from someone who claims to be a doctor that makes you even more sick? You would expect the self-proclaimed doctor to be held accountable. This is the same damned thing. Are you really too stupid to see that it isn't the responsibility of the public at large to thoroughly fact-check and research everything that they hear on the news before they act?

You’re misidentifying the services rendered. Cramer is giving his opinion. He is ethnically, but not legally, responsible for the outcomes. A doctor’s trade is governed by different rules. A mechanic’s trade is governed by different rules. The nature of the market is such that it is impossible to know, beforehand, exactly what is going to happen with the same deterministic success that one achieves as a diagnostician of people or mechanical devices.

It isn’t the responsibility of the public? Well, who’s is it? If I write a paper at the university level and crank in the report of a source that can be considered unreliable or ill-informed, as news media have been shown to be, then I am going to receive poor feedback and low grades for the sorry quality of my judgment.

Golden mean. Cramer is supposed to be a journalist. Journalists are supposed to find the truth, not act as mindless PR people to the folks they are supposed to be covering. It's his FUCKING JOB to find out if what they are telling him is true or not. As I said in my previous post (which you, AGAIN, ignored), what if Woodward and Burnstein had just printed a story that said nothing happened at Watergate because Nixon said so?

Either concede the point or address any of the dozens of arguments that have been made against you in this thread. So far you have ignored virtually all of them.

You are not making arguments with respect to what I am saying. Instead, you are manufacturing strawmen, or else spouting unfounded assertions.

Cramer believed he was discharging his responsibility. Stewart replied, “You were hoodwinked! You should have known better!” Okay. Cramer evidently isn’t a good journalist in the sense that you would like him to be. Did that surprise you in any way? It didn’t surprise me. Cramer doesn’t bill himself as a journalist in the classical sense; he’s just a guy who claims to have a good understanding of the market, and appears on an entertainment vehicle.

Your comparison to Woodward and Burnstein is invalid. If they printed lies, they are liars. If they rendered bad conclusions, they’re inept. Cramer may be the former, and he has certainly been the latter. But Woodward and Burnstein claimed to be telling the unvarnished, “actual factual” truth about things that happened. Cramer is giving his considered opinion, if that.

Argue that journalism needs to be more accountable, more trenchant about "the really important stuff." I'm right there with you. But don't participate in Stewart's big myth that Cramer is a genuine journalist who can be neatly grouped in the same realm with Woodward and Burnstein. Cramer is the equivalent of a writer of editorials -- a big talking head retained because he produces what people enjoy consuming.

[The Yosemite Bear]

I still say that the best part about this whole thing was cramer mentioning the whole thing on his own show, and then bait and switched a clip of his interview with MARTHA STEWART, and said that his interview with Jon Stewart was "A Cake Walk"