Just watched the unedited version online. That was awesome. I see this in the broader picture: that news reporting is containing less and less investigation or insight. It's basically parroting press releases and allowing itself to be a talking piece for whoever wants it. I noticed it first in politics, and now it's obvious we've been seeing it in finance too. It's not helped by these factors: news media having to cut costs due to the internet age while increasing programming time, and having to rush news out to not be behind the curve. And for many shows, the gap between news and comedy is nominal. It's all entertainment, just with a different slant.
I can speak for no one but myself. My problem is with Jon Stewart claiming he runs a comedy show. He says that every time somebody calls HIM on anything. If he is a comedian, (as he continually asserts), then he is a boor. If he is something else, then he is a liar. Was his bit with Cramer "funny"? He seemed deadly serious to me. He can do and be whatever he wants, but if he continues to claim to be a comedian, then he is as duplicitous as those he attacks. I know that the Left Wingers loooove hypocrisy, but that shouldn't stop me from pointing it out. I hope that helps.
IRC, I get your point in principal, but Stewart is a political satirist. This means that not everything out of his mouth is meant to illicit guffaws. I wholly disagree that he is to be considered a hypocrite if he does the occasional serious interview on his comedy talk show.
yes. hilarious. sometimes the opponent's ridiculousness is the punchline and you're not supposed to slap your knee. __________________________________________________ if that is the criteria, then everyone on talk radio is a comedian.
I see this in the broader picture: that news reporting is containing less and less investigation or insight. It's basically parroting press releases and allowing itself to be a talking piece for whoever wants it. __________________________________________________ dude, have you been watching cable news for a week or two? The election coverage was a joke, truly an obomination of journalism. there is no investigative journalism, hasnt been for years, unless you live in alaska... it has nothing to do with recent cutbacks. i like how stewart decided to rip cramer over his bear stearns interview and the fallout now as opposed to when it actually happened. i wonder why that is? maybe its because cramer criticised the obama economic policies...im probably wrong of course, JS must have been upset with cramer for months on this one...
general35, i saw a daily show about a week or so ago where they did a montage of stuff from cnbc (and i thought others but maybe not) of where the dow was and what was being said by the "financial advertainers" on cable. Cramer was on there a bunch but wasn't the sole focus. I hadn't really watched the show much since that one but I think that started it. I guess Cramer was just the one that responded and started a fight about it. Someone else may have more detail on that. The montage was funny but it wasn't like some new thing for that show. They make fun of cable news outlets all the time for a variety of reasons. I cannot imagine that this was an intentionally drummed up argument with Cramer in particular given my understanding of the circumstances. Just my basic understanding. Someone else may have better details on the in between period. and one more thought... i DO think stewart is left-biased on most topics. I have been put off by him more in the last years because it has gotten worse (and i don't think just because bush was an idiot). on this particular topic though, i don't think he was out for the democrats. just my opinion. regardless of his bias. he won the fight with this particular adversary and i was quite impressed with him.
I just watched the interview. Cramer was an idiot for accepting to come on the show. It was not at all an even playing field. Cramer is an infotainer who makes public predictions and recommendations while Stewart is a talented comedian that makes fun of other people that actually do stuff. Why would Cramer even consider going to Stewarts home field for this ambush? He looked like a deer in headlights.
The problem here for some of you is you feel the need to be able to label Stewart. He does not fit cleanly into comedian, journalist, Democrat, Republican- he is unique and is a combination of such. I'm sorry, but some of the posts here make me want to pull out my hair. What the F does it matter if he is always funny or not? What do you not get about him calling out politicians on both sides of the isle? Some people, including myself, consider it a gift if with all the people in this world some of us can still manage to be somewhat unique. Some nights his show makes me laugh, some nights he's not funny, sometimes I agree with him, sometimes I don't. Is your funniest comedian ALWAYS funny? Nope. Folks, get over the need to label people.
UTChE96, if you think Stewart wouldn't have accepted the offer you haven't been paying attention. He used to pick on Crossfire all the time, and when they invited him he went (The Link )... and destroyed them in their own house. Stewart doesn't back down on stuff like this. As for TDS following the WH's lead, that is a fun little narrative you've written for yourselves on this. Stewart has consistently gone off on all of these people since the start of the downturn. You don't watch the show, but that doesn't stop you from creating some fictional story of how all this stuff went down. It is wrong, but it fits your expectations, so you run with it.
UTCHe, you clearly don't watch his show. Jon Stewart is very bright, and very funny- he decides to show different talents on different days and goes after whomever he chooses. He just pwned a famous, extremely bright, successful, Harvard Grad and head of his own hedge fund on national tv.
UTChE96, whether you found it memorable is hardly the point. Had Cramer invited Stewart, Stewart would have gone and relished the challenge. Stewart wouldn't have been able to bring his clips, but I guarantee you he would have been a hell of a lot more ready than Cramer was. I'm not exactly sure how you can call what Stewart did an ambush job, though... Stewart simply did what he had been doing all week, that Cramer wasn't better prepared was no one's fault but his own. The clips that Stewart played was completely fair game and entirely on point.
You'll find that alchemy is generally rejected at the patent office as grounds for establishing a new claim.
