Jon Stewart interviews Jim Cramer

[Tiriol]

For anyone still mystified as to how a "mere comedian" (never mind the fact that making good comedy can be rather difficult) could pull off this while more "serious journalists and reporters" couldn't, one needs only to look back into history and witness the tradition of the court jester, already invoked in this thread.

The court jester was a royal equivalent of a village idiot to many: some guy with eccentrities to spare and who would constantly babble the strangest and most bothersome things, even to the king himself. However, many times those jokes, half-insane lyrics and strange little proclamations were just about the only form of criticism that wouldn't warrant a rather unfortunate fate in the dungeon, mines or before the executioner. The jester was allowed to say those things - negative things about the king, about the law, about the church etc. - because they came from someone whom nobody usually took seriously. They were a way for everyone around to blow off a little steam through the jester. "The Emperor has no clothes!" story has a little girl who isn't awed by the Emperor's status, but points out the truth; the ideal court jester would be the same. And since the jester often had a free run of the royal court and the place of dwelling he could be pretty knowledgeable about politics, court intrigue and various personalities, so his jokes could also be pretty pointed and eerily informative.

The court jester of those days was pretty much the luxury of the few; however, Stweart and his colleagues have a much greater audience. And as such, they saying "The Emperor has no clothes!" will reach more ears. For some it might be a wake-up call; and for some, it might be a a way to allow the anger and bitterness gathered inside them lash out at someone harmlessly.

[Vendetta]

The other meaning of the "I'm just a comedian" line is a jab at the supposed "actual" news networks.

It's "I'm only a comedian, you should have done this, why haven't you?"

In the case of Cramer, it's fairly clear from the videos Stewart showed in his interview that he was well aware of the deception practised in the market, and that his sin as a financial journalist was not a sin of omission but of commission, he was, essentially, part of the scam that is modern finance. A peripheral part, very possibly, but it's clear that he was in a position to know what was really going on and chose not to expose it when giving financial advice.

[Darth Wong]

Exactly. As I said before, it's a big club. These guys are all friends with each other, and they all have similar backgrounds and attitudes. Cramer is one of the boys, and Jon's video clip showed why he would never gotten a job in financial news reporting if they took their public responsibility seriously. It would be like hiring Richard Nixon to be a political reporter.

Mind you, MSNBC actually hired Joe Scarborough to report on politics, so we're almost there. The entire media is a joke; they treat the news more as a star vehicle than as actual journalism.

[ray245]

NBC boss: Jon Stewart's criticism absurd, unfair
By Paul Thomasch Wed Mar 18, 9:14 AM PDT

NBC Universal Chief Executive Jeff Zucker fired back at comedian Jon Stewart on Wednesday, saying it was "unfair" and "absurd" for the funnyman to criticize CNBC and question its coverage of financial news.

"Everybody wants to find a scapegoat. That's human nature," Zucker said during a keynote address at a media industry conference. "But to suggest that the business media or CNBC was responsible for what is going on now is absurd."

"Just because someone who mocks authority says something doesn't make it so," Zucker said, describing the comedian's comments as "completely out of line."

Zucker's comments are the latest salvo in a war of words with Stewart, who hosts the mock news program "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" on the Comedy Central cable television network owned by Viacom Inc.

Stewart has blasted CNBC's reporting of the financial market meltdown, saying the channel was too cozy with corporate chiefs and key government officials.

The comedian has lobbed particularly harsh criticism at CNBC commentator Jim Cramer, and last week invited him for an appearance on the comedy show, where he hammered the guest for his coverage of Wall Street.

"Listen, you knew what the banks were doing, yet were touting it for months and months," Stewart said during his March 12 show. "The entire network was. Now to pretend that this was some sort of crazy, once-in-a-lifetime tsunami that nobody could have seen coming is disingenuous at best and criminal at worst."

"TERRIFIC" JOB

Zucker, speaking at the McGraw-Hill Media Summit in New York on Wednesday, said that CNBC's reporters and commentators had done a "terrific" job and the network remained a "go-to" place for financial news.

"It's unfair to CNBC and to the business media in general," Zucker said. "I don't think you can blame what happened here on the business media."

The CEO of NBC Universal, which also owns the NBC broadcast network, cable channels like Bravo and USA, theme parks and a film studio, among other businesses, said the public was tired of hearing the media blamed for its coverage of financial news.

"Frankly, I already think you're seeing a backlash," he said.

Zucker also noted that the financial crisis has bolstered CNBC's audience ratings, and said he expected viewers to stick with the cable network even if the economy remains mired in recession.

"When there is a lot of red on the screen, historically people don't want to watch that," he said. "That is absolutely not the case this time. I don't think this is like those other times."

General Electric Co holds an 80 percent stake in NBC Universal, while France's Vivendi owns the other 20 percent.

(Reporting by Paul Thomasch; Editing by Brian Moss)

http://tv.yahoo.com/contributor/48520/n ... __ER:58578

Gosh, they simply refuse to realist their mistakes don't they?

[Patrick Degan]

Exactly. As I said before, it's a big club. These guys are all friends with each other, and they all have similar backgrounds and attitudes. Cramer is one of the boys, and Jon's video clip showed why he would never gotten a job in financial news reporting if they took their public responsibility seriously. It would be like hiring Richard Nixon to be a political reporter.

Mind you, MSNBC actually hired Joe Scarborough to report on politics, so we're almost there. The entire media is a joke; they treat the news more as a star vehicle than as actual journalism.

That's the reason I really can't bring myself to watch the movie Network anymore. It is a great movie, but reality has outstripped Paddy Chayefsky's satire of the 1970s.

[Ziggy Stardust]

quote]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.

I snipped the rest because the essence of our disagreement comes down to these paragraphs. I'm not sure if you've ever watched Cramer's show, or CNBC, but he DOES bill himself as a reliable financial journalist, as does the network. The motto of his show is "In Cramer We Trust," for cripe's sake.