Did you guys watch tonight? This was amazing, uncomfortable- and extremely ground breaking all at once. How many times has someone been called out, and pwned of Jim Cramer's status? Jim was very apologetic, seemed a little down, and said he'd change his show's slogan from "In Cramer We Trust" to something new. He also promised to give CEO's a more challenging interview and not believe whatever they say. Jon S wasn't very funny during the interview- he was before it started- but I think he did what a 60 Minutes strives to do, and what the network and cable journalists rarely do. As a guy who works in finance, I watch CNBC regularly. I don't think less of the channel because of this- but I think it's a reminder to use the station as a source of real news, and try to filter out their commentary and guest chatter.
very uncomfortable. It looked as if Cramer was beat down. Like he had suddenly realized his life's work and his career was a sham, and seemed almost embarrassed and ashamed. He kept repeating that he had been lied to by CEOs, but it rang pretty hollow. Jon did not let him off the hook. Very uncomfortable.
Beatdowns are not fun to watch. Especially when the victim seems contrite enough. I had a hard time not feeling sorry for the guy.
Me too. But Jon was right, no matter how uncomfortable it was. They ate Wall St's bait hook, line, and sinker and many of them still are. I think Kramer is an alright guy and genuinely wants to be one of the good guys which is why he took the Stewart criticism so personally. He just falls prey to Wall Street's siren song sometimes. Maybe this will be a wake up call for him.
The video tape of him from Dec. 2006, bragging about how he manipulated markets was not so gently skirted into the conversation. If you're the SEC, in the wake of the Madoff scandal and associated lawsuits, do you pursue Cramer? This interview I believe will have ripples that will continue to resonate a long time from now. It's been 2 hours, and I'm still shocked- reading the news analysis now about what happened. I wonder if we see any genuine changes from CNBC to not cheer and support everything every guest says.
Getting your financial news from CNBC is like getting all your college basketball news from Dickie V. I posted this on the thread over on Cactus but first, Cramer should get some credit for even going on the show. He knew he'd get hammered and he did. Second, the interview was supposedly condensed down to fit the show. They left 8 minutes on the cutting room floor, so to speak. Comedy Central said the entire interview should be on their website today.
Yes, Cramer was really humbled. It was uncomfortable. Stewart was as serious as serious could be. I think he has a good central message but also excessive naïveté or idealism. Yes, CNBC has an excess of infotainment if they aspire to be “news”. But they are a commercial enterprise and what you see is in a large part their response to their market. In this sense it is the same critique offered to FOX and some conventional news efforts. All have been compromised for the commercial aspect. I’d like to see less of this but I don’t know how it is achieved as long as TV is commercially driven. Another critique is that CNBC is “clueless” in their domain, in that they didn’t forecast the recent collapse, and that predictors like Cramer are wrong half the time. Well, all predictors are wrong half the time, and if Stewart wants to eliminate this he’ll have to eliminate the predictors. But, again, there is a market for this type of advice, whatever its limitations. Secondly, outside of a few people, no one, CNBC, The Economist, academia, conventional news, no one called the collapse with any effectiveness. No doubt CNBC is over committed to the optimist camp, but Stewart’s expectation that they will deliver better information that what the whole rest of the world can produce is too idealistic. Sure, their information and advice sucks. Lets compare that to the national political news enterprise and how they have served the US public over the last decade. Same suckitude. Maybe we expect too much. CNBC and The News employ people, normal people, not Nobel Prize winners. I like what Stewart has done and that he has, for a brief moment, asked CNBC, and by implication, news in general, to rethink what their purpose is. I don’t have any illusions that the outcome of that thinking won’t retain a strong market and commercial component, and that the enterprise won’t be run by humans with their inherent limitations. News suckitude joins the list of those inherently disappointing things in life, that we just have to deal with and move on: organized religion, popular music trends, Houston humidity….news suckitude.
jon stewart = dennis miller. depending on your point of view these men are either humorous, but intelligent social commentators or has been comedians with a political ax to grind. like everything, probably somewhere in the middle.
I don't agree. They have been on the wrong side in the past and were very much asleep as the wheel during this whole mess. Now they have seemed to cross a line that indicates what they are trully about. Here is a good article I saw today: www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1884328,00.html good quote: "CNBC's reaction is colored by its stressed-out day trader's focus on the short term. When ordinary people think about the economy, they think about jobs, college, retirement. Sure, the stock market affects them in the long run — but so do job security and the threat of getting wiped out by health-care bills. When CNBC considers the economy, it means Wall Street's numbers that day, that hour, that minute. CNBC may pay lip service to the long term, but it has the time horizon of a fruit fly."
Would Stewart have questioned Cramer’s record as an on-air stock picker if Cramer hadn't strayed off the ranch and questioned Obama's economic plan? Would Stewart even have known who Cramer was if Cramer had continued on his merry way supporting Obama as he did before the election? Probably not. Why did Stewart decide to do a piece now? Questions on Cramer’s record and influence have been rattling around since Cramer left his hedge fund and became a regular on CNBC. It can't be because Stewart is upset about a portfolio stuffed with stocks recommended by CNBC. Not to defend Cramer as stock picker, but he does go out there everyday and “lay it on the line” to use a bad cliché. Stewart is just a very funny and clever member of the peanut gallery. CNBC does play an important role. They disseminate breaking news very well. They synthesize the conventional wisdom and give some color to the markets. Making individual investment decisions or stock picks based on their "analysis" is plain dumb.
This had nothing to do with Obama. Why does everyone always turn to that? This had to do with calling the financial elite out for putting the entire financial system in peril because of enormous greed.
Agreed- this has NOTHING to do with Obama. If you're one of the guys who think J Stewart is some lib hack- you really don't watch the show. The night before this interview he was dancing with Paul Rudd who is advertising his movie Best Man or something. JStewart is a rare blend of sometimes funny comedian, intellect- and idealogue- or something. I don't know how you label what he did last night- but he did it once before to Tucker Carlson and the liberal guy on that CNN show Crossfire for being partisan babies.
No kidding. This was not Dem vs GOP. It was also not just about making wrong predictions. It was about a failure of journalism to get the story of what was going on and being too cozy and believing with corporate executives. It was also about how the big money boys were gambling with everyone's money and reaping huge short term payoffs for themselves while letting the investors cover the losses. Don't judge the interview and the issues unless you see it. Don't judge it by my words. Stewart did a brilliant job that should have been done by serious journalists covering the markets. Cramer concedes that and Stewart himself says he should be making fart noises for laughs instead having such a serious interview. It was Mike Wallace in his prime good. Cramer arrived with a sincere mea culpa, but didn't get the absolution he and his network hoped for. The issue is too important, the losses too great.
If Cramer has attacked Bush, Stewart would have never brought this up. That is a fact. So yes, it has to do with him attacking BHO. You are blind if you do not see that.
Real journalists have been hammering Cramer for quite a while. It just hits your, and Stewart's, radar because he had the audacity to question Obama's economic plan. He had to be brought down a peg or two. Delegitimized. Cramer has been a buffoon and has had a poor record on stock picking for years. I would have been more impressed if Stewart ran with this after Cramer endorsed Obama. From Barron’s Aug 2007 In reply to:
My guess is that you're commenting on an interview you didn't watch. Your default, partisan position doesn't much apply here. Geez.
Actually, Stewart did not single out Cramer. In the first show, he took on CNBC as a whole, showing clips from a number of their anchors/personalities. Cramer was the only one to respond directly on camera to Stewart and claim that Stewart was misrepresenting him, at which point Stewart did another show focusing only on Cramer. That is how we got to this point. I'm sure your GOP distortion glasses will somehow insert Obama into that sequence, but your delusion doesn't change the truth.
I think someone hit the nail on the head when they said that Stewart taps into populist angst. He strangely heaps on self-rigtheous outrage incredibly long after the ship has sailed on whatever crisis dejour. He makes people shout "Yeah! Thats right! Get him!" because he takes complex issues and boils them down into black and white, big vs. little scenarios that have only tenuous links to reality. Wall Street screwed Main Street? Sure. Greedy condo-flipping scum on Main Street screwed their more responsible neighbors, however. Self-righteous Dem and GOP legislators screwed their constituents by being asleep at the switch. Pension Fund and Endowment Managers, supposedly the paragons of sophistication and prudence, went whole hog into supporting speculative investment schemes and screwed the people they were supposed to be looking after. Central Bankers around the globe screwed everybody by reinflating bubbles in lockstep via coordinated low-interest rate regimes. Our current government is aiding and abetting the screw job by bailing out the reckless idiots that got us here. Throw in Icelandic Banks, the Rating Agencies, Eastern Europeans that took out mortgage loans in Japanese Yen, and Irish Real Estate Speculators, and you STILL have not adequately captured all the folks. So I am not impressed with Jon Stewart's pseudo-intellectual cheap-seats posturing, even when he piles on a deserving target like Jim Cramer.
The question still stands: Why now? When the, as admitted, face of the network (to the unwashed masses) attacks Obama's economic plan. Then the White House Press Secretary attacks Cramer by name. This in-depth/ground breaking reporting done by Stewart that you are fawning over isn't groundbreaking. It came after Obama's press secretary laid the groundwork. Stewart supplied, very well I might add, the coup de grace for the White House. Maybe I was too strict in asking why Stewart didn't do this a year ago? Why didn't he do it before the White House attacked the face of CNBC last week?
Rick Santelli is a clown? All he said was the he and others are getting screwed by the Obama bailout which is very true. I would love to hear some of our Depression-era forefathers take on why concepts like believing in self-responsibility and accepting consequences for your actions make you a clown. We are now in fa antasy-land, however, where we all must bend over and take it in the keister because Saint Barry and his band of zealots prophesy doom and brooke no debate or dissent.
If you're one of the guys who think J Stewart is some lib hack- you really don't watch the show. The night before this interview he was dancing with Paul Rudd who is advertising his movie Best Man or something. __________________________________________________ What does paul rudd have to do with his political leanings? He is a liberal hack. I'm trying to figure out what the big deal is over cramer. if people are taking investment advice over a tv show and not following up on it, that is their problem...its a tv show...good lord, he isnt madoff...if you remember, this crap was brought up initially because cramer criticised the obama administrations economic policy. he was attacked for it and prior comments about cramer, trying to show him as an incompetent boob were brought up....i guess they found only one or two examples of it...so basically, stewart attacked cramer, a well known democrat, because he criticised obama, which makes him a liberal hack...
