Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditWhew! Stewart vs. Cramer--which might as well have been called journalism vs. the kind of bullroar that got us into this mess--was the most riveting TV since the Inauguration. Here's Part I; you can click through to see Part II and III:
Cramer was sitting like a Catholic schoolboy in trouble with the head nun--hoping that by sitting with superstraight posture, hands always visible on the desk, and mea culpa-ing her to death he'd get the lecture over with sooner. He was all animal fear, his every gulp and bead of sweat palpable through the screen: I felt I was inside his skin, my stomach turning over too, as if the experience was bringing us all down to the bottom of the human condition.
Cramer had been on convicted inside-trader Martha Stewart's show earlier that day, admitting to a vague sense of guilt and confessing his fear of the beating he would get from his "idol" Jon Stewart. In all his on-air appearances (at least, all those after Huffington Post put up theStreet.com tape of Cramer recommending spreading false rumors to make quick money, which Stewart ran again and again), Cramer had so thoroughly pre-atoned that he'd instantly agree with Stewart's every criticism even before he finished a thought. Stewart was saying something about "treating people like adults," as Cramer blurted, "HowaboutItry? I'lltrythat! Icandothat!"
In fact, he was so quick with his prostration that it seemed clear Cramer didn't really understand Stewart's argument at all, which wasn't about whether he or CNBC was right or wrong on this or that stock tip, but that the network's entire ethos made it part of the massive fraud that Wall Street has been engineering for the past decade or more. Stewart's was that oldest common sense argument: There's no such thing as a free lunch, and wealth you don't have to work for eventually goes poof. "There's a market for it and we give it to them," Cramer protested, showing, again, that he didn't get it. "There's a market for cocaine and hookers too!" Stewart replied.
Cramer repeatedly tried to put the onus on the CEOs who "lied to me." How was he to know that these people, whom he'd known for years, would just lie to him? Well, Stewart said, your job isn't to buddy up with them, but to stand on the outside and report on them.
Stewart is often praised, and rightly so, for doing what reporters should be doing--James Fallows just wrote that he's become Edward R. Murrow--but his rise as a tribune of the people has less to do with his own virtues than it does with the remarkable failure of American journalism under George W. Bush. Stewart is not a reporter, nor a financial expert. He's merely unconstrained by cozy access arrangements and corporate media shibboleths, free to call a war lost or an economy rigged--or a TV network hopelessly full of hype and bombast--based on what's right in front of his own eyes.
His interview with Cramer was so white-knuckled and full-bore that this morning even Cramer's buddies, like the head-in-the-sand crew over at Morning Joe, said nary a word about it, firmly averting their eyes from their colleague's nakedness.
Will Brian Williams make the Cramer vs. Stewart bout the lead item on NBC Nightly News tonight as he did Santelli's rant? There are a lot more folks in the media and on Wall Street who need a televised defenestration like this.
UPDATE: As to whether NBC news would lead with the Stewart/Cramer bout, the answer is no. Ann Curry, who subbed for Brian Williams Friday night, didn't mention it. Nor did Chris Matthews or Keith Olbermann on MSNBC (even though Keith had previously made Rick Santelli one of his Worst Persons). If an item from TV Newser is right, the loud silence from the extended NBC "family" was no accident: "A TVNewser tipster tells us MSNBC producers were asked not to incorporate the Jim Cramer/Jon Stewart interview into their shows today."
Still, I was hoping against hope that freer-thinker Rachel Maddow would buck any such corporate edict from on high. And buck she did! She gave the story a couple of minutes, describing it in fairly neutral tones, ending on the lament that just when we really need a tough financial watchdog press--implying that CNBC ain't it--the Washington Post announced it's eliminating its stand-alone business section.
We all know a cable network that could use some solid business reporters...
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
Stewart is not a journalist. He's a failed comedian who revamped his career by parroting Bill Mahr.
Simply become a "witty" leftist ideologue and you become a icon with a cult following by the left.
The lauds for Stewart are like one hand clapping, that being the left rather than all Americans.
It's about time that some return fire is directed at Stewart and other leftist ideologues
Scarborough, Cramer Fire Back At Daily Show's Stewart
http://tinyurl.com/cq4ayt
Posted by antisocialist at 03/13/2009 @ 1:45pm
Oh bother. I wouldn't call one of the most popular comics working today "failed". Please name a comedian who wouldn't trade places with Stewart this morning? As to "one hand clapping", nice try. The media is all but celebrating Stewart, left and right, as the journalist they all wish they could be. Yes, by all means, Morning Joe, fire back! As for Cramer, weren't you listening? Anti, you have really drunk the cool aid, haven't you? Too bad, a mind is a terible thing to waste.
Posted by Cannonball at 03/13/2009 @ 2:01pm
"Fraud"
How much you want to bet nobody goes to jail. They all played by the rules.
Look, the entire world economy fell off a cliff. That caused the price of stocks to fall. Sometimes that happens. People are generally cofortable admitting that there is just that much uncertainty in life. People want stability and when things are termendously unstable they want an answer other than, "that's just the way life is." So they tell themselves there is "fraud" but that doesn't make it true. It just helps them to sleep better at night.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 03/13/2009 @ 2:07pm
Posted by Cannonball at 03/13/2009 @ 2:01pm
Of course he was a failed comedian. Name one successful comedy movie he made. Or name a highly succesful club act or Vegas contract that he had.
you are correct that the liberal MSM is celebrating him. But not right, just left.
If Stewart is a journalist than Keith Olbermann is Walter Cronkite- and Olbermann remains one of the biggest failures and jokes in cable tv.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/13/2009 @ 2:07pm
Posted by antisocialist at 03/13/2009 @ 1:45pm
Call him what you will, Stewart is widely successful. You sit here and defend Rush Limbaugh but you can't do that same for John Stewart because he is saying something you don't agree with?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/13/2009 @ 2:10pm
Fine.
But who thinks CNBC will now improve?
Or that the WSJ will cease to be a conduit for the sharks on the front page & a cheerleading section on the op-ed.
Or that any of the sharks will be indicted, besides the obvious scammers who didn't qualify for bailouts or takeovers, the Madoffs & Standfords.
The fix is in, if you're big enough, both under Bush & under the current crew who are part of the same crew who built this catastrophe, certainly including Rubin, Summers & Clinton for revoking Glass-Steagal.
Posted by sloper at 03/13/2009 @ 2:10pm
Well it's not like Stewart was wrong. He was right about cozying up to those you are supposed to be watching impartially. Too bad honesty doesn't pay.
"Stewart's was that oldest common sense argument: There's no such thing as a free lunch, and wealth you don't have to work for eventually goes poof. "There's a market for it and we give it to them," Cramer protested, showing, again, that he didn't get it. "There's a market for cocaine and hookers too!" Stewart replied."
Very true words.
Posted by k330k at 03/13/2009 @ 2:11pm
Posted by antisocialist at 03/13/2009 @ 2:07pm
Again you will sit here and defend the like of Rush Limbaugh who, essentially does the EXACT same thing as John Stewart with a little less sarcasm but then you will complain about John Stewart because he happens to be saying things you don't agree with.
Whether you want to accept it or not, he is wildly successful.
Oh and by all standards he actually had a pretty decent film career going for him. I haven't seen his stand up but he was pulling a lot of parts in movies and television shows.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0829537/
There is his IMDB if you want to look at it.
You spent a whole thread on the union talking about how hard work and reinventing yourself will get you ahead, then you now freak out because someone worked hard saying things you don't agree with.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/13/2009 @ 2:17pm
Hypothetical scenario.
A CEO goes on Cramer's show and said our fundamental are sound.
Then a jury in MS gives away $100 billion dollars of his money for no good reason and the stock sinks.
Did the CEO commit Fraud?
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 03/13/2009 @ 2:17pm
Then a jury in MS gives away $100 billion dollars of his money for no good reason and the stock sinks.
Did the CEO commit Fraud?
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 03/13/2009 @ 2:17pm
No. But a CEO going onto a show and saying our fundamentals are sound while having the knowledge that they aren't is fraud. The example you give is far fetched at best.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/13/2009 @ 2:19pm
No. But a CEO going onto a show and saying our fundamentals are sound while having the knowledge that they aren't is fraud. The example you give is far fetched at best.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/13/2009 @ 2:19pm
A year ago, there was nothing in the history of the stock market that indicated it could fall 50% in three months. But it did. You guys are bitching that we didn't write down all of our assets 50% a year ago in anticipate of something that had never happend in the history of the universe and are calling it fraud.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 03/13/2009 @ 2:21pm
The sub-prime mortgage bonds were constructed so that there were mortgages from diverse geographical regions in the country. These bonds were valued by PhD's model that simulated the risk of real estate prices dropping in an uncorrelated fashion because never in the history of the universe had real estate prices dropped in every single one of the 50 states at once.
When real estate priced did something they'd never done before, that is lose value in every single state at once, the bond lost a tremendous amount of value. But based on what land prices had done throughout history, there was not reason to suspect this was possible.
This had never ever happend before. It's as if every dog in the US started talking tomorrow. There is nothing in the history of mankind to think that dogs could talking and one day they all start talking at once and The Nation starts chastizing people for not knowing that this was likely to happen.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 03/13/2009 @ 2:28pm
A year ago, there was nothing in the history of the stock market that indicated it could fall 50% in three months. But it did. You guys are bitching that we didn't write down all of our assets 50% a year ago in anticipate of something that had never happend in the history of the universe and are calling it fraud.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 03/13/2009 @ 2:21pm
Whoa, calm down. I didn't accuse anyone of commited fraud. I just noted what fraud is.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/13/2009 @ 2:30pm
A year ago, there was nothing in the history of the stock market that indicated it could fall 50% in three months. But it did. You guys are bitching that we didn't write down all of our assets 50% a year ago in anticipate of something that had never happend in the history of the universe and are calling it fraud.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 03/13/2009 @ 2:21pm
Whoa, calm down. I didn't accuse anyone of commited fraud. I just noted what fraud is.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/13/2009 @ 2:30pm
Again, love to see Stewart interview...
James "Dow 36,000" Glassman!
heheh
Posted by Mask at 03/13/2009 @ 2:39pm
A year ago, there was nothing in the history of the stock market that indicated it could fall 50% in three months. But it did.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 03/13/2009 @ 2:21pm
--- Why restrict the comparison to 3 months?
"In the here and now, the Dow has dropped 52.5 percent since its high of 14,279.96 on Oct. 11, 2007, to its low point of 6,779.62 during intraday trading on Monday.
And in taking a similar period of a year and five months in the late 1920s, it's a case of deja vu.
The rate of decline is mimicking that of the Dow during the Great Depression.
Back on September 3, 1929, the Dow hit a high mark of 381.17. And over a similar length of time, it fell 54.7 percent to 172.36 on January 2, 1931."
-http://tinyurl.com/bgy78n
Posted by FLaim at 03/13/2009 @ 2:56pm
CCC,
My defenses of Rush are based mostly on the fact that he is the 2nd largest radio figure in our Nation's history in terms of total stations. He is the largest in terms of earnings.
He has succeeded in becoming one of the central voices for conservativism.
So acknowledging the obvious, sure, I'll cop to that.
Stewart meanwhile had forgettable movie moments, never was successful in standup. And is only successful now because he is an arrogant leftist ideologue therefore making him the darling of the MSM and bloggers like yourself.
As I said, I have tried periodically to watch him over the years, but he is so much of a arrogant leftist, that like Mahr, he is not worth wasting my time with. I can only tolerate a few minutes of his BS before switching the channel. He is neither funny nor relevant. And like my comments on George Carlin, he will not be missed by me when that day comes.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/13/2009 @ 3:08pm
The show was great. It is a comment on the state of journalism today that the most unbiased and accurate news show today is a comedy. Much as I dislike Cramer and others like him I have to give kudos to him for coming on the show last night. He had to know what was coming and he went anyway. Stewart was right, it was as uncomfortable watching as it must have been for him doing that.
Posted by bascaville at 03/13/2009 @ 3:13pm
Posted by antisocialist at 03/13/2009 @ 3:08pm
Larry, if you can cite Jon Stewart's past failings as evidence against him....can we not cite Rush's past failings too?
Not even his three marriages, drug addiction, but things like when he said
"take that bone out of your nose and call me back" to a black caller as a music DJ in the 70s?
Or does Limbaugh get a different standard on HIS PRESENT success?
also wouldn't ...
"And is only successful now because he is an arrogant rightist ideologue therefore making him the darling of Fox News and bloggers like yourself" apply to Rush???
Posted by Mask at 03/13/2009 @ 3:13pm
Not sure what this one is all about? I've seen clips of Stewart, Cramer, and I remember that Mahr had a failed TV show popagated on the HATE BUSH, HATE CHRISTIANS and CHRIST themes, but how is anything they say relevant to anything?
Guess this thread is another Leftist inside joke of some sort!
Posted by comancheamerican at 03/13/2009 @ 3:20pm
"Stewart meanwhile had forgettable movie moments, never was successful in standup. And is only successful now because he is an arrogant leftist ideologue therefore making him the darling of the MSM and bloggers like yourself. "
Posted by antisocialist at 03/13/2009 @ 3:08pm
You will be dead long before he is if you are as old as you say. Just to inject reality into your last comment.
On top of that, how is he any LESS arrogant than Rush? Again you don't like him because he is saying things you don't agree with. That is why you are unable to applaud his success. If someone makes themselves a success parroting your views then they are great and have accomplished amazing things. If someone is saying something you disagree with then they are just arrogant, doesn't that make you arrogant by the way?
"arrogant leftist ideologue"
I would argue that Rush is just an arrogant rightist ideolgue. And the only reason he is popular is because he echoes the hate mongering and fear of the extreme right.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/13/2009 @ 3:20pm
"And is only successful now because he is an arrogant rightist ideologue therefore making him the darling of Fox News and bloggers like yourself" apply to Rush???
Posted by Mask at 03/13/2009 @ 3:13pm
LVL can't see things like that. He believe his view of the world is how everyone else SHOULD see the world and if they don't then they are a bunch of arrogant socialists.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/13/2009 @ 3:22pm
Stewart meanwhile had forgettable movie moments, never was successful in standup.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/13/2009 @ 3:08pm
Who cares? He tried, failed, tried again, eventually succeeded. American Dream. And he's funny.
"less to do with his own virtues than it does with the remarkable failure of American journalism under George W. Bush." - Savan
Ya, his was lonely voice in the wildreness, wasn't it? This is what scares people about the Left. The MSM is majority lib by a landslide, but that's not enough.
Posted by gangpapist at 03/13/2009 @ 3:28pm
antisocialist, give it up dude. stewart utterly eviscerated cramer, wall street and cnbc. whether he is a failure, in your mind, has nothing to do with the substantive criticisms stewart put forth last night.
do us all a favor and selectively rebut a specific claim stewart or cramer made last night. serious. i dare you. try it. and please put aside your opinions of stewart (or cramer) and focus only on the interview and claims made therein.
i'll bet you, right now, that you can't do it. you'll simply retreat in your cave, ignore me, and just call names.
Posted by darladoon at 03/13/2009 @ 3:34pm
if john stewart is a failure, then george bush is god.
Posted by darladoon at 03/13/2009 @ 3:35pm
One thing is clear and that is the kind of diplomacy we can expect from Obamanation!
"Upon the arrival of British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, the first head of government to visit the White House, Obama let word out the bust of Churchill that Prime Minister Blair had presented to the United States as a gift from the British people had been returned to the British Embassy.
That offensive act without explanation gave substance to an unconfirmed story making the rounds in D.C. that, when President Obama walked into the Oval Office for the first time and saw the Churchill piece, he said, "Get that goddamn thing out of here."
While the story was never fully substantiated, despite frequent repetition on radio talk shows, the sentiment seems to have been confirmed by Obama's subsequent actions.
Perhaps Obama, who grew up in Kenya, took umbrage at Prime Minister Churchill's actions in 1953 of wiping out the Mau-Mau, the Kenyan terrorists who made a specialty of slitting throats of sleeping white and Black Kenyans.
Just to make sure that Prime Minister Brown got the message that the special relationship was finito, Obama canceled a joint news conference with Brown. That tradition began with Churchill and FDR and continued with presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy (with Macmillan) up to recent presidents Bush (1) (with Major) and both Clinton and Bush (2) (with Blair).
Not only did Obama exclude Brown but also the British reporters from covering Obama's press conference.
The London Daily Telegraph stated, "Obama has been rudeness personified towards Britain."
Obamanation does have a special gift of making enemies of friends now thats just special!!!!
Posted by comancheamerican at 03/13/2009 @ 3:37pm
Stewart's point was well made - the job of the media is to investigate and report, not take anything at face value.
Iraq War - regurgitated talking points
And now Wall Street - There has been little coverage as to the real cause of this crisis - it's just so much easier to blame the housing crisis - just another flimflam by the bankers to blame someone other than themselves.
Where was the media when Glass-Steagall was repealed? Where was the discussion about the consequences - allowing corporations to, yet again, become "too big to fail."
Where was the coverage about Paulson, as CEO of Goldman Sachs running off to Congress to demand leveraging be increased from 12/1 to 35-40/1? Did any of the media think of the consequences? Had the leveraging stay at 12/1, we would not be in the mess we're in today, regardless of the home foreclosures.
The media is too cozy with the bankers who are holding the taxpayers and Congress hostage with their power, when they should be reporting how and why we are leaders are being held hostage or in cahoots with. The media is also too cozy with government officials as well. Bush proved that by denying access (or allowing questions) from those in the media who showed the slightest disagreement AKA Helen Thomas. They are more concerned with getting access, so they can be on the nightly news segment, than they are in doing any actual investigation.
Perhaps, if they had less access to power, they'd have more time to investigate and report the truth, rather than the talking points.
The freedoms of this country have been sustained by an investigative press unwilling to accept the BS being spewed by those in power. And, unless they return to that role , our Constitution will be worth little more than the paper it is written on
Posted by treetracker at 03/13/2009 @ 3:51pm
Yes, Jon Stewart is a failure. And Bush is God.
Anyway, the NYTimes review of the show painted Cramer as having the last laugh, the big winner in the publicity sweepstakes, and Stewart the loser.
Might the Times be worried that Stewart could turn similar analytical guns on the Times? Conduit for Bush govt propaganda re Iraq invasion, cheerleading in editorials, no investigatory journalism throughout the buildup & invasion & early years of Iraq occupation... the Times couldn't stand that scrutiny, hence its great sympathy for & spin on behalf of Cramer.
Might be interesting to examine the Times & its hacks like Friedman over the last decade on financial globalization, revocation of Glass-Steagal, brilliance of US financial genius ... the Times has been a print version of CNBC for years ... until the collapse.
Posted by sloper at 03/13/2009 @ 3:59pm
anyone with even of shred of intelligence knows that stewart destroyed not only cramer, but the entire ruling class and their friends in the media, by pointing out that the media's role is to scrutinize claims made by politicans, businessmen and journalists.
cramer made numerous false claims and failed predictions. stewart pointed them out. cramer squirmed. and the right wing, including antisocialist, will simply go after stewart by calling him a "failure," rather than address claims made by stewart.
that, my friends, is cowardice.
Posted by darladoon at 03/13/2009 @ 4:06pm
but kudos to cramer for actually facing up to his failures, and not hiding (like limbaugh or antisocialist would).
cramer is no coward.
Posted by darladoon at 03/13/2009 @ 4:08pm
Wait, the Times is a right-wing paper? Was CNN the McCain News Network? Are Slate and Salon, Vanity Fair and the New Yorker secretly run by moonshine swilling hillbillies?
My God, the magnitude! Maybe we need to get government involved to get some balance in the media.
Posted by gangpapist at 03/13/2009 @ 4:10pm
LVL can't see things like that. He believe his view of the world is how everyone else SHOULD see the world and if they don't then they are a bunch of arrogant socialists.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/13/2009 @ 3:22pm
Conversely the leftists come here and spew that anyone who doesn't agree with them is a nazi or a fascist.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/13/2009 @ 4:25pm
that was painful to watch...
stewart was the thunderous voice of god...cramer was right to tremble.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/13/2009 @ 5:18pm
A year ago, there was nothing in the history of the stock market that indicated it could fall 50% in three months. But it did. You guys are bitching that we didn't write down all of our assets 50% a year ago in anticipate of something that had never happend in the history of the universe and are calling it fraud.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 03/13/2009 @ 2:21pm
you need to read this article from 1897:
http://optionarmageddon.ml-implode.com/2009/03/11/panics-and-booms-1897/
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/13/2009 @ 5:49pm
The rate of decline is mimicking that of the Dow during the Great Depression.
Posted by FLaim at 03/13/2009 @ 2:56pm
the four bad bears:
http://dshort.com/charts/bears/four-bears-large.gif
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/13/2009 @ 5:50pm
It's about time that some return fire is directed at Stewart and other leftist ideologues Scarborough, Cramer Fire Back At Daily Show's Stewart Posted by antisocialist at 03/13/2009 @ 1:45pm
Did you see the interview...? Fire back with...what exactly? (and don't say poo flingin)
Posted by ADHD at 03/13/2009 @ 6:03pm
Also, you have to take the poo out of your ears if you want to claim you saw and heard the interview...
Posted by ADHD at 03/13/2009 @ 6:04pm
Also, you have to take the poo out of your ears if you want to claim you saw and heard the interview...
Posted by ADHD at 03/13/2009 @ 6:04pm
My link was to Cramer's appearance on Morning Joe, not Stewart's program. I would waste my time with Stewart's program.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/13/2009 @ 6:22pm
I thought Steward was hilarous, and Cramer was a little less agressive then usual. After hearing the cable news networks reporting 24/24 how bad the economy is, how the President is doing, is his plan working, etc etc. This comic break was like spring break.
Posted by mitsie at 03/13/2009 @ 6:35pm
Conversely the leftists come here and spew that anyone who doesn't agree with them is a nazi or a fascist.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/13/2009 @ 4:25pm\
Only when said Nazi or Fascist comes here and calls me Marxist. See I only ever reciprocate LVL. You've insulted me enough. I tried to hold back from insulting you but you have proven arrogant and frankly to be a disrespectful and abrasive human being. So every time you insult me. I will insult you in turn. Eye for an eye right?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/13/2009 @ 6:42pm
The stinking reek of guilt filled the studio. That interview was like watching a guilty criminal's story break down while being interrogated by a veteran detective. Even aside from the devastating conflicting statements proven by his own video clips. The hubris and arrogance broke down before he even got on stage. You could tell that he regretted being there, knowing that he was about to be taken to the tool shed by his better. He even conceded after being publicly exposed on national television with how indefensible and filthy he is. His reputation is permanently destroyed. Long live John Stewart, and God bless you, sir. Keep 'em coming.
Posted by Milhaus at 03/13/2009 @ 6:54pm
LVL can't see things like that. He believe his view of the world is how everyone else SHOULD see the world and if they don't then they are a bunch of arrogant socialists.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/13/2009 @ 3:22pm
Conversely the leftists come here and spew that anyone who doesn't agree with them is a nazi or a fascist.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/13/2009 @ 4:25pm
Oh and do you see the irony in that you are no different than they are yet you spend your time insulting them? They are a perfect foil for you.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/13/2009 @ 6:54pm
Well let me see, it seems to me everyone invested into the stock market hoping the stocks would appreciate and bring double, triple, or even higher rates than the safer, steady treasury notes even though they knew full well the value of the market is based mainly on investor confidence. They were glad to rake in 10 to 20 percent or more appreciation for years. But now that their gamble has bit them in the butt, they're all whining like a bunch of greedy cry babies that they couldn't make two or three times the money for nothing. Isn't that essentially what Mr. Stewart was complaining about? I'm not sure he's any more morally right than the ones who caused this mess. If everyone wants to return the money they've made with the double or triple rates of appreciation they've received over the last 10 or 20 years, then fine, we'll hear your complaints, but until then, quit you're whining and accept your riskier losses because it would be essentially the same as refunding all the money lost at the casinos. Taking risk is what gambling is all about. I know all the people that lost in the stock market won't like to hear this but it's the truth, Ruth!!!
Posted by Barfalo at 03/13/2009 @ 7:39pm
Cramer's role was to get, Happy ... and such like now shown to be suckers (yes?), to stay in the market and buy stocks, for as long as possible.
This was not courage, this was damage control.
Posted by V at 03/13/2009 @ 8:14pm
Jon Stewart is a superb satirist. He's Mort Sahl, but quicker - and with a small but highly talented staff. He's also the best newsman alive. Yes - he's "unconstrained by cozy access arrangements and corporate media shibboleths," but that's who Jon Stewart is is and why he has found his exceptional stride on the Daily Show. Stewart has also brought us this level of exceptional reportage on many other occasions. While he uses a comedic vehicle to tell the story, his depth of information on any particular critical subject is often more profound than that found on the Nightly News. I'm sure Jon Stewart would be very happy to continue to be known as just some funnyman, but if Edward R. Murrow were alive today ands wanted to rebuild his team, he'd choose Jon Stewart before any of the talking news heads who merely parrot the talking points of their subjects. That's not totally sad because Jon Stewart is a comedian. Those of us who watch his show regularly have long known that he's so much more than funny. It's sad that everyone else in the "News" business is neither funny nor digging into the news.
Posted by wbramh at 03/14/2009 @ 12:07am
I like Cramer. His show is silly and meant to be, but he does make serious statements re: stockmarket. So, there is some blame for him to accept and he did.
As for Stewart...
For those who regard him as failed comic etc... don't watch him.
There are alternatives....
I don't know who to recomend...
Morose, pudding faced, hack, Rush Limbaugh, or Wizened, has-been, paragon of smarm, Dennis Miller.
Don't forget the Batshit birgade... O'reilley, Beck or Gibson if you like insane people.
Posted by koroviev at 03/14/2009 @ 01:29am
beautiful!! jon stewart is incredible.
Posted by loveloki at 03/14/2009 @ 02:36am
Posted by comancheamerican at 03/13/2009 @ 3:20pm
So I guess "independents" like you love Dubya as you love Christ, huh?
Posted by Mask at 03/14/2009 @ 07:39am
Its so satisfying to see Jon Stewart expose the reality of the media. Bottomline, they have no Testicular Fortitude. They should be reclassified as Entertainment, just like it was proven that Wrestling was not a sport but an Entertainment show
Posted by pauly at 03/14/2009 @ 2:29pm
If I had to characterize you, I'd go with misguided, but well-meaning dupe of the conservative right.
Posted by snowball666 at 03/14/2009 @ 05:38am
He means me because I always call him a Fascist anytime he calls me a Socialist.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/14/2009 @ 2:49pm
I just love how Tucker Carlson and Morning Joe-k have made this about themselves. What Class!!
Posted by jimfields at 03/14/2009 @ 3:04pm
Cramer vs Stewart was the best peice of journalism I've seen on tv ever. The only thing missing was the barbeque sauce. It is pitiful to see a comedian doing the work of professional journalist. And hilarious to see so called pundit who think that they are journalist ie Joe Scar. deafing silence the next day on the show. Talk about cowards. I'm waiting for them to blame their silence on co. policy.
Stewart + 1. Rush neg. 10,000.
Posted by libbyleft. at 03/14/2009 @ 4:35pm
This whole financial crisis is the result of skulduggery by ass holes like the Wall Street Journal, Citibank, CNBC, Lehman Brothers, AIG and the entirety of the republican establishment. Republicans guffaw when they hear a statement like this, but it is the damn truth. They are guilty of the fleecing of America's middle class.
Reagan started this mess with his ridiculous "trickle down" crud. Why were so gullible to fall for it? In some vein I blame Clinton and his peccadilloes. We were distracted. But the time has come to keep our eye on the ball and set this country back on the course we never should have left.
Posted by m1kem1lls at 03/14/2009 @ 7:57pm
It's disgusting when comedians have to do the work real journalists should be doing - journalism. I thought the press was supposed to be the independent 4th estate. Oh well, that's what you get when the rules are tossed out so the wealthy can buy everything. Either Kramer and Company are blind, of their lying. Or else, perhaps, they're just on sale to the highest bidder.
Watchdog media indeed! It's like letting Fox News guard the accuracy hen-house during the rush to war.
Posted by Kristev at 03/15/2009 @ 01:25am
Posted by comancheamerican at 03/13/2009 @ 3:37pm
If you gain your knowledge of the world from sources that tell you that Obama grew up in Kenya, then you are woefully uninformed.
Posted by Webcorex2 at 03/15/2009 @ 04:32am
Simply put - Rush is the biggest in radio - obesity, hotair, fearmongering, and race/gender baiting tactics. He's a drug addict whose biggest drug is feeding his ego.
Posted by Greytdog at 03/15/2009 @ 07:10am
YEs, Jon Stewart is a comedian. He's also highly intelligent and cuts through bull$h*t. CNBC is no more a finanical news network than Comedy Central. As Stewart points out, at least Comedy Central is upfront about their purpose. Scarborough is a has-been Congressman who likes to believe himself important - he offers nothing of substance. Olbermann is as obnoxious as O'Reilly - two sides of the same coin. Matthews is often an incoherent fool who shouts at and over his guests while they attempt to make a salient point which he doesn't understand. Chris Wallace is the W of network news - still competing with papa - although cut from the same cloth, Chris has to prove he's more conservative and nastier than daddy. (chris, you've proved it, now go away) Maddow on MSNBC and Shep Smith on Fox are two of the more credible pundits - and if Smith keeps popping off like he did about Glenn Beck, he'll be asked to leave the network.
Posted by Greytdog at 03/15/2009 @ 07:17am
To me the important result of this exchange was not a lefty/righty thing or a question of credibility. What Mr. Stewart did here was bring back the tough question. For too long access has stood in the way of journalistic inquiry. No one wanted to ask the really tough question for fear of losing access. But if the tough query generates ratings then perhaps TV journalists may suddenly regard the razor-sharp probe as some sort of new toy "Wow, let's see what this baby can do!". That would only help the public discourse. Dave
Posted by DavidDurham at 03/15/2009 @ 11:13am
Two problems with the possible outcome of this stinging interview, however. First, The way that the TV stations have factionalized almost entirely conforms to which network they are owned by. Already the other networks are using the interview as a stick with which to beat NBC, while everyone at NBC is lining up behind Cramer. The confrontation between Stewart and Cramer is being used cynically as a tool of corporate warfare.
Second, The way Stewart singled out Jim Cramer makes me fear that he saved CNBC the trouble of finding a sacrificial lamb. What was intended as a critique of the whole channel is being turned into an inquisition of Mad Money by the major networks. Will Cramer's show be cancelled so as to nip this criticism in the bud? To me that is unfair to Cramer, but it is a tried and true tactic.
Posted by Webcorex2 at 03/15/2009 @ 11:34am
darinthebigfattroll wrote: "People want stability and when things are termendously unstable they want an answer other than, "that's just the way life is." So they tell themselves there is "fraud" but that doesn't make it true. It just helps them to sleep better at night."
sounds like an explanation for religion and this made up "God" people mention ad nauseum
Posted by urmygyro at 03/15/2009 @ 2:24pm
I just watched the interview. I hadn't seen it before. You may dislike him LVL and again this you believe in rhetoric instead of examining things on merit. This is a REAL interview. This is REAL investigative reporting. I know you haven't watched the interview LVL. But what Jon Stewart did is what all reporters should be doing. He didn't take Cramer at his word. He grilled him. He made sure he wasn't going to just slide away unscathed. He bent him over and held him accountable for his actions. THAT is how a journalist should work. Too often in this country journalists just ask a question get an answer and walk away. The interview process is only held up in the art of the follow up question. Jon Stewart did a superb job in showing that he is not only a comedian but can also be a journalist as well. Unless you have watched the interview LVL your criticism means 0. If you disagree that this is real investigative journalism then you are COMPLETELY blinded by partisanship and rhetoric.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/15/2009 @ 3:49pm
Leslie's constant bashing of any media outlet that doesn't think about the world the way she does smacks of a subjectivism that renders her opinions useless.
Smeone throw HER out the window.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 03/16/2009 @ 12:03pm
"There's a market for it and we give it to them," Cramer protested, showing, again, that he didn't get it. "There's a market for cocaine and hookers too!" Stewart replied. posted by Leslie Savan on 03/13/2009 @ 1:14pm
Yes ma'am: There are much worst heads at CNBC, that need to roll. Any one who makes investments on the Cramer word should realize the risk of listening to a used car salesman selling the sham wow. The others Like: Kudlow, Santelli, Cabrera, and cute Maria and Becky are much more seductive and dangerous. You are correc5t that Maddow and Olbermann seem to be the only creds. left at NBC. To their credit they at least have them. The other Networks seem to be absent. Bloomberg is so esoteric that they are nearly useless.
Posted by julien38 at 03/16/2009 @ 2:08pm
It isn't about Cramer. It is about CNBC and its attitude about finance. The Wall Street Journal manages to keep its reporting separate from its opinions. At least when I read it regularly before Rupert took it over. CNBC doesn't. Overall it fawns uncritically over finance, its institutions and its chiefs. It has gone as far as leading in one Power Lunch program with "The War on Wealth" referring toObama's proposed taxation changes, and Erin Burnett once referred to those complaining over financial execitive pay as "the mob".
CNBC ideologically seems committed to the monetarist, Reagan and Thatcher model. All of which is fine, if it kept its opinions apart from its reporting which it doesn't. Watching its anchor interrupt and talk over guests who disagree is annoying at least and at worst makes it harder to get information and downright stupid.
I know something about this because I invest for a living and have since the late sixties, and I couldn't care less about what CNBC anchors feel about Milton Friedman or taxation or executive pay. I am interested in the information I can use to make appropriate investment choices. CNBC's ideological biases gets in the way. It promotes and that can be very harmful if it keeps people invested when they shouldn't be. Or sells people to invest who actually shouldn't. For a generation now investing, particularly equity investing, has become an uncritically accepted article of faith, something beneficial for all, which it is not. CNBC is all about maintaining that faith.
I gave up on CNBC a while back, moving on to Bloomberg which keeps to its knitting a bit better, and is generally better at allowing guests with different points of view.
Charlie M.
Posted by cmsandia at 03/16/2009 @ 2:22pm
CNBC ideologically seems committed to the monetarist, Reagan and Thatcher model. Posted by cmsandia at 03/16/2009 @ 2:22pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Yup and those two lovelies proceeded to build an economic foundation in quick sand and now the whole mess is sinking. Nixon started the move to full blown internationalism, but Reagan didn't have a clue what that was about. He invented the "Mantra" Protectionism and he suddenly thought he was an economist. I wish he had been diagnosed with alzheimer's before he sold the country out. Even more guilty is my horny buddy Clinton. He must have known better. Now we keep hearing "the great depression". This is nothing like "The Great Depression". During the 20's and 30's we still had the industrial tools in place, now we owe 10 trillion and our industrial tools are all in China. China owns 2 trillion worth of our government. They don't have to attack us the only have to wait a a few months and buy us up. The brits just bought the Sears tower, and who owns Time Square. I was really excited to hear Obama say, this morning, "we have to start building things".
Posted by julien38 at 03/16/2009 @ 2:56pm
And like my comments on George Carlin, he will not be missed by me when that day comes. Posted by antisocialist at 03/13/2009 @ 3:08pm
Aw, cmon anti... there are some subjects that I just don't comment on because I either have nothing to say, or I don't know anything about it. Pastor, I humbly submit that this topic is out of your field of expertise.
I'll laugh at Dennis Miller on TV, but his humor is still a little mean. He sucks on radio; he seems to feel the need to be 'fair and balanced', and that limits him. I liked him better before his 'political' days. Limbaugh tends to rant, but he could probably use traditional humor to a greater advantage. Funny just can't be denied, fat cracker or no.
But to put down John Stewart, Keith Olberman, Bill Mahr, AND George Carlin all in the same paragraph just ain't right. As for Stewarts 'failed' career before now, I think almost everyone in the world did some things poorly before they found things that they excelled at.
These guys are left leaning satirists, yes. But they wouldn't be funny if what they said wasn't true.
Posted by ficheye at 03/16/2009 @ 3:14pm
Oh, you could also say:
"There goes a guy with an open mind; you can feel the breeze from here!"
Ba-da-boom!
Posted by ficheye at 03/16/2009 @ 4:12pm
Jon Stewart - appeared in like 17 movies, wrote several books including a couple on the best seller lists, 2 Peabody Awards, hosted the Grammys twice, hosted the Academy Awards twice, won a Grammy for best commedy album, Entertainer of the Year, 15 years on TV, Comedy Central, MTV, 10 years on TV with his own show - which spawned a couple of spin offs and lauched a few other careers...
...yes, sure...he's 'failed'.
In nustso-wingnut-land, up is down, black is white, and 'wildly successful'...
...is 'failed'.
Posted by Lillian at 03/16/2009 @ 6:51pm
Yes,anti-socialist,Stewart is a failed comic.His show atracts so few viewers it's on the verge of being cancelled any minute now. Stewart is actually a very good journalist.Too bad that he prefers comedy instead,for we could use a few good journalists to ask more tough questions of the Wall Street gang. I'm so glad I invested my money in the market,it's all gone away now and my retirement nest egg has disappeared,perhaps I can get the geniuses at Merril Lynch to support me in my old age.Maybe the folks at AIG can spare a few pennies to help me out.Who knows maybe we can get them to actually help out a few widows and orphans and people of modest means-what am I saying,Wall Street types help make pensioners and poor people better off?Why that would mean that they would have to unrig the markets and that just wouldn't do. Perhaps to avoid a similar market meltdown in the future we pass a law that says that CEO's and other executives of Wall Street firms have to invest their own money in the market and if their company goes south because of their greed then they have to liquidate their assests,leaving them enough that they can afford an off the rack suit,a ten year old high mileage used car,and rent of about three hundred dollars a month(plus liquidating the kiddies trust funds and making them pay their own way through college and life).The best way to keep Wall Street from impoverishing us all is to make sure that these executives will be the first to lose their money,then they be careful not to play fast and loose with other people's money.
Posted by Johnthesoldier at 03/17/2009 @ 05:29am
"Hypothetical scenario. A CEO goes on Cramer's show and said our fundamental are sound. Then a jury in MS gives away $100 billion dollars of his money for no good reason and the stock sinks. Did the CEO commit Fraud?"
Let's not talk hypotheticals, "Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll"; there's no need for that. Why not talk about the reality that is unfolding right before our eyes?
Or don't you want to?
Posted by JakobFabian at 03/17/2009 @ 10:19pm
It is a comment on the state of journalism today that the most unbiased and accurate news show today is a comedy. Posted by bascaville
I read an almost identical quote in Michael Jason Overstreet's book "71 DAYS: The Media Assault on Obama." In searching for unbiased media coverage during the 71 days of the General Election, Overstreet credits Jon Stewart as being one of the few people who could be depended on to present and correctly assess what was happening daily. It's interesting that the two of you came to the same conclusion and used almost exactly the same words. You're not MJ Overstreet, are you?
Posted by yamel at 03/18/2009 @ 5:32pm