Stewart vs. Cramer: Two Quick Perspectives
Media weenie that I am, I feel compelled to be one more voice giving the proverbial two-cents worth on the takedown of CNBC’s Jim Cramer by Jon Stewart on “The Daily Show” last night. You can’t swing a dead cat today without hitting a link to the interview, but here’s one more.
PART 1: Stewart vs. Cramer:
At this point, I’m as tired of it all as I’m sure Stewart and Cramer are, so I’ll be brief. Although there’s no doubt that the comedian bested the money man—took him apart piece by piece, actually—I still think it’s worth looking at from two basic perspectives, and I’ll provide two links that might give you an idea what those perspectives are.
First, Stewart’s position that the business media should have kept a watchful eye on the growing bubble rather than deifying the people who were growing it is a hugely important point to make as we seek the truth about what went so wrong with our economy. The fact that it took a comedian to make it—although at this point, I think Jon Stewart has to be regarded as something more than that—is itself an indictment of the very institutions he’s criticizing. Here’s an article on the interview that sheds some light on this.
“You see, Stewart's real critique wasn't about Cramer, it was also only marginally about CNBC. Instead, Stewart's real rage comes from the role the modern media has created for itself: the role of cheerleader instead of watchdog, of favoring surface over depth, of respecting authority instead of questioning it.”
But, secondly, it’s precisely because Jon Stewart ISN’T a newsperson that he was able to say these things in the first place. Because if you’re part of the mainstream NEWS media, you ARE big business! CNBC is owned by General Electric, for goodness sake. Do you think a subsidiary of a really huge company is capable of being an effective watchdog of other really huge companies? The world doesn’t work that way. Cramer’s performance last night might have been terrible—what’s that expression about never bringing a knife to a gunfight?—but in the big picture, how critical do you expect him and the other folks on CNBC to be, of a business culture they are a part of? This is from the website Balkanization:
“Professional journalists must abandon the bad habits of contemporary journalism, and the sycophancy, corruption, and complicity that come with them; but to do that, they also have to find some way to free themselves from much larger social and economic forces that lead to co-optation.”
Media conglomeration has come at a price. Until the public urges Congress to make changes, the big watchdog will continue to snooze.
PART 2: Stewart vs. Cramer:
PART 3: Stewart vs. Cramer:
| Search Blog
|
Comments: 7
Cramer is a nut. He jumps around his "set" like a basketball. I don't understand him, and I would rather watch FAST MONEY. At least you have a bunch of people who look like they are on Hollywood Squares, making some sort of sense of it all.
This Cramer is stranger than the other Kramer on TV. Maybe he thinks he's a TV personality. I don't think he makes a hell of a lot of sense.
Saturday Night Live could do a better job than him.
Yeah, he's rich, and a smart guy, but, his TV stint is
ridiculous in my book.
To all those who advised Cramer eat humble pie, you were wrong. Apologies for this string of clichés, but they are fitting: Cramer fell on his sword, was hoist by his own petard, this deflated balloon of a man, the proverbial fall guy, CNBC's sacrificial lamb, was a dead-guy-walking well before he even hit the airwaves.
Were CNBC, in fact, a credible broadcaster, it would have sent a network honcho to serve as its spokesperson -- someone seriously prepared to address and, if possible, defend the devastating lapses in judgment displayed by its hot-headed on-air personalities.
Cramer should never have been allowed to engage with Stewart, who grew more and more irritated each time the so-called investment guru tried to hedge, to make personal the much larger issue of CNBC's unethical allegiance to Wall Street.
With each obfuscation and denial, followed by Stewart's fact-based video-clip refutation, Cramer's voice grew increasingly high-pitched and strangulated. The closest I can come to describing the pitiful sound was that of a shame-faced three-year-old about to break into huge sloppy wails of contrition. Any credibility he might have had beforehand -- and that's not much -- evaporated like so much hot air.
To all those who advised Cramer eat humble pie, you were wrong. Apologies for this string of clichés, but they are fitting: Cramer fell on his sword, was hoist by his own petard, this deflated balloon of a man, the proverbial fall guy, CNBC's sacrificial lamb, was a dead-guy-walking well before he even hit the airwaves.
Were CNBC, in fact, a credible broadcaster, it would have sent a network honcho to serve as its spokesperson -- someone seriously prepared to address and, if possible, defend the devastating lapses in judgment displayed by its hot-headed on-air personalities.
Cramer should never have been allowed to engage with Stewart, who grew more and more irritated each time the so-called investment guru tried to hedge, to make personal the much larger issue of CNBC's unethical allegiance to Wall Street.
With each obfuscation and denial, followed by Stewart's fact-based video-clip refutation, Cramer's voice grew increasingly high-pitched and strangulated. The closest I can come to describing the pitiful sound was that of a shame-faced three-year-old about to break into huge sloppy wails of contrition. Any credibility he might have had beforehand -- and that's not much -- evaporated like so much hot air.
Interesting exchange, but it is so-o-o-o-o simple. Ya see, this time Cramer spoke out against the wrong President! For that, he gets a dressing down from the extreme leftists of the mainstream media, who will brook ABSOLUTELY NO critique of the person whose election they fought so-o-o-o-o hard to bring about. The left treats its "defectors" like the mob does its FBI informants. The right will publicly berate them in the third person (as did Limbaugh with Michael Steele and Newt Gingrich), but they will stop short of destroying or completely disabling them. Yes - Cramer does appear mortally wounded.
I believe that for all his pontificating with Cramer last week, Stewart had no complaints when he'd previously towed the party line. None of his hedge fund activity or shilling for the banks or his lousy (very lousy!) stock calls seemed to matter BEFORE last week. (Cramer was either too flustered or too timid to point this out in the appearance.) But the day he criticized the mere timing of some of the stimulus package provisions a giant bull's eye suddenly appeared on his back! Please note that he didn't even OPPOSE health, education or environmental reform, or increasing upper income taxes. He only called for a POSTPONEMENT of their enactment.
This episode has the smell of an Axelrod-Emmanuel orchestrated hit, with Stewart getting the call. Robert Gibb's uncontainable glee also supports that inference. In the entire eight years of Bush-Cheney-Rove, NOT ONE opposition media person was ever singled out by name for ridicule or retribution. FIND ONE AND I'LL STAND CORRECTED! So far, we have Limbaugh, Santelli and Cramer on Team Obama's public S-list in less than two months. Of them, only the latter has sheepishly backed down, and thus merits more contempt than any sympathy or support.
hey jimbokins,
please spare us, will, you? your age is really showing. dude, you need to get beyond the old school news cycle. cramer v. stewart's already off the new media newswheel, especially on a friday.
you see, jimbokins, we hunt for news over the weekend now & oh, by the way, it's out there to be found.
if you want a weekly wrap-up, maybe it's time you took over for marlin or marvin or whatever you call your crypto-news-keeper guy.
here's a thought, why don't you get up with the times, old man?
painfully speaking-
your adoring fans
An "expert" or a "guru" has only as much importance as others are willing to assign to him. It is my humble opinion that there really are NO experts in any given field of knowledge! I don't think Cramer was never really meant to be taken too seriously, CNBC just gave him a show for entertainment value because of his wild eyed, eccentric persona--and figured that people would watch and follow whatever he had to say simply because he was touted as some sort of expert on stocks and such. Whatever the case, he is now trotted out and shamefully displayed as the fall guy, the sacrificial lamb. Anyone who actually followed his advice is now encouraged to blame him for their losses. This is what we get when we look to others to tell us what to do with our own money, instead of taking the time and effort required to do the research and make our own well informed decisions,take educated risks.
What was it they used to put in fine print at the end of those commercials for the Psychic Friends Network, something like "This is meant for entertainment purposes only"? Maybe that's what they should be putting at the end of all the programs on CNBC, especially Jim Cramer's Mad Money.
No one should take financial advice from a wild man jumping around and screaming like he's being burnt with hot pokers. If there's anything to learn from this, it's that all of us should be responsible for educating ourselves about where we are putting our money, and the risks inherent therein.
Stewart 5, Cramer/CNBC 0.