Cramer vs. Stewart

I don't know how many people have been following the manufactured beef between John Stewart and Jim Cramer (long story short, he played a bunch of clips of CNBC endorsing stocks like Bear Sterns and Lehman Bros days before they tanked and CNBC got all butthurt).

Anyway, Steward had him on last night and devoted pretty much the whole episode to him, and gave him and his channel an incredibly satisfying intellectual face smashing that really was amazing to watch. Cramer looked like he was ready to cry. If you missed it, you should really check it out.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/in...m-cramer-pt.-1
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/in...m-cramer-pt.-2
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/in...m-cramer-pt.-3

Apparently Cramer's ratings are down 24% since this feud started, btw.

It was pretty brutal, some good things were said, but I do wonder if Cramer, a financial analyst and entertainer, should be held so stringently to journalistic standards. He's not really a journalist.

I also don't buy into the implied notion that CNBC is responsible for common peoples' financial problems because they rely on CNBC's advice and they can't help themselves. But it really would be nice there was a legitimate mentality behind financial/political coverage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkRyan

I do wonder if Cramer, a financial analyst and entertainer, should be held so stringently to journalistic standards. He's not really a journalist.

---

I get the feeling that Cramer was the one more interested in framing himself as a journalist. Jon just wanted him to realize the influence he weilds as a voice in the media and the responsibility that carries (not specifically as a journalist, but anyone with that kind of voice). Stewart says "We're both snake oil salesmen, but at least we label our bottles as snake oil." The problem isn't the product, it's how it's being sold.

Quote:

---

I also don't buy into the implied notion that CNBC is responsible for common peoples' financial problems because they rely on CNBC's advice and they can't help themselves. But it really would be nice there was a legitimate mentality behind financial/political coverage.

---

I don't think he was saying that people were victims for following the advice that didn't pan out. What he was saying was that there is a sub-sector of the financial industry to which CNBC subscribes that focuses on a kind of investment that is short term, high yield, and based on illusory perceptions, and this kind of investment is predatory and makes us vulnerable to the kind of economic crisis we're in right now.

I think he's 100% right about that.

Cramer is now the fall guy for the entire network, interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkRyan

It was pretty brutal, some good things were said, but I do wonder if Cramer, a financial analyst and entertainer, should be held so stringently to journalistic standards. He's not really a journalist.

---

Cramer worked as a journalist for years before he became a private hedge fund manager (not just a "financial analyst") and CNBC talking head. Part of the appeal of his show is the aura of supposed intelligence and financial savvy that he radiates. So when he either fails to do his homework or unquestionably accepts the talking points of CEO's on his program, he fails as a journalist at the very least. At worst, he was using his reputation to outright mislead people at the behest of the financial industry, to the detriment of millions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YellerDog

Cramer is now the fall guy for the entire network, interesting.

---

With the way Cramer and CNBC handled this whole "feud" they only have themselves to blame.

How did Cramer become the main PR lacky for CNBC? That would be like holding Dan Rather accountable for everything CBS did while he was on air. I just don't get how Cramer became the scapegoat for everything can some one explain this to me?

He sucks.

There you go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bojack

How did Cramer become the main PR lacky for CNBC? That would be like holding Dan Rather accountable for everything CBS did while he was on air. I just don't get how Cramer became the scapegoat for everything can some one explain this to me?

---

He didn't become a scapegoat. Jon Stewart started the interview by saying he was discussing something bigger than just Jim Cramer.

So how did Cramer end up defending the station he was on? Well... he made a lot of comments to the media criticizing the Daily Shows treatment of CNBC and then he booked himself on the show to talk about it. No one bullied him into it. He stepped up to a fight and got his face smashed.

Jon Stewart is the fucking man.