so basically, stewart attacked cramer, a well known democrat, because he criticised obama, which makes him a liberal hack... _________________________________________________ Stewart could have addressed the issue over whether Cramer's opinion about obama's economic policy was sound or not, but he didnt, instead he brought up an example where cramer was wrong in the past...the typical political hack job...ignore the issue at hand, bring up something completely unrelated to make the other side look bad. you all know what i'm talking about, it occurs every minute on west mall.
Agreed. Difference is that one is a comedian doing a fake news show and the other is the purported leader of the GOP. __________________________________________________ actually, what rush does is very similar to what stewart does. if you look at any poll, a majority of young people say they get their news from the daily show. it doesnt matter what you think the show is about, its what the public as a whole thinks.
I don't get the blind sided attack from the right here. Did any of you even watch the interview? In NO way was politics a part of this. In NO way has politics ever been a part of this CNBC vs. Comedy Central dual. It was an amazing interview on face value alone- and I really encourage you to watch it before dismissing it because of your predisposed, and likely inaccurate feelings. That's the problem with the partisans in this country, they politicize issues that have no business being politicized. I can name a dozen- like stem cells, environmental issues, etc- some things are a matter of science, finance, health- and are not political.
I think the folks here who don't know him well or watch the show often brand him as left- just because he did so much material on Bush, his mistakes in office and his dumber moments. If making jokes about Bush's dancing, and giving analysis on Bush's mistakes makes you liberal- then I'd guess 99% of this board qualifies as liberal with that definition.
Wait. So Jon Stewart is no longer a comedian? The Daily Show is no longer a comedy? Is Jon now a journalist? Because that's not what says when he gets that stupid schoolboy look on his face. Perhaps he's just another chameleon (read: liberal hypocrite) who changes his skin to fit the argument-du-jour. Or just another Kool-Aid vendor. Push the agenda in whatever guise you need to take. Spring a trap for Cramer, (not a fan), and pretend to be a journalist. Then go back to mug for the camera to prove it's all a joke. Lap it up, boys. Lap it up.
My general impression is that JS is looking for something from CNBC that it cannot possibly deliver. And this comes from an assumption that undergirds his entire thesis, that being that CNBC was complicit with lying Wall Street executives. I don't know that this is a false assumption, but it is one that he makes without even attempting to establish. CNBC doesn't interview guests under penalty of perjury. If they are lied to or misled on air, what can they do? If what he wants out of CNBC is clairvoyance, it just is not going to happen. I would also question the timing of this along the same reasoning as given by some posters above. And perhaps most importantly, I question whether JS will ever go after the other players in this debacle. Particularly, I'd like to see him challenge irresponsible homeowners and (though the left would never have it) the Fannie and Freddie establishment. And what about other media outlets who failed to see this coming (which would include almost all of them)? For that matter, why not criticize government or academia? They didn't forecast it. What JS's recent spat with CNBC does demonstrate, however, is that CNBC does tend to cheerlead when times are good and to dissuade nay-sayers when signs begin to point south. If you've watched the network much at all, you probably detected this. But for those who have not, JS's take does provide that degree of enlightenment. And I did find it funny that JS starts with this:
As others have said, this isn't about Jim Cramer. It's about the business media in general but CNBC in particular. They're the most adoring media group out there and come to find out, they don't really know that much about their subject. At least political reporters understand their topic. They may swoon upon the mere mention of Obama's name at times but eventually, one of them asks a tough question. With the business media, in the Enron example, took the company line like they were the Enron PR office. It took a print journalist to actually admit they didn't understand how Enron made any money. The adoring TV media never thought to ask. Now, here we are with the banking system and the same thing has happened. While they were repeating the CEO line, Meredith Whitney actually questioned a few things. She was seen as a killjoy among the talking head set but she was right. That's fine if you run an entertainment network but CNBC and the rest of the business media likes to think they're serious journalists. Come to find out, they didn't understand the invesment banks any better than anyone else. (You could make the case the investment banks didn't understand their business model, either.) Combine this with hedge funds charging people 2/20 only so they could give that money to Madoff who in turn charged them 2/20 and you can see why people think Wall Street is a bunch of short term smoke and mirrors.
I'm no political or economic expert but I watched the interview and I applaud one singular thing about it and leave the rest up for debate. Stewart's team did their research and destroyed and arrogant prick who thought he could say things on camera in a very "i'll tell you the real secrets of how to make money" and get away with it. The guy proved himself to be a smaller than his ego and Stewart exposed it. I wouldn't be surprised if he ends up with some legal issues and a lost job in all of this. Regardless of the motivation on either side, a weak, pathetic member of the media was fully exposed, devoured and his bones were spit back into his little chair. To me, it just proved he isn't worth a **** and Stewart accomplished his mission in doing that. Cramer's little "oh oh a comdian is attacking me" sarcasm was obviously a thrown down gauntlet to Stewart and I will guarantee that he won't f**k with Stewart again. Good for Jon. Stood up for himself and proved his point.
"If you think Stewart is doing journalism, you don't know what journalism is. It may not be your fault, especially if you are young. In your lifetime, journalists are untrained monkeys asking uninformed questions of celebrities. Stewart also does that, so maybe it seems similar. Stewart is a comedian. That's a very specific job and it's not all about laughs. Seinfeld called comedy "the truth, only faster". It's about seeing absurdity and pointing it out in a specific way that makes you realize your own doubts, uncertainty, fears even. It makes you laugh sometimes and cry other times. Stewart can see absurdity, and point it out, but he's not doing journalism and he would have no talent for it. Journalism would be something like becoming an expert in derivatives and risk and, based on that knowledge, asking CEOs of banks questions, rooting out hidden problems in published balance sheets, maybe even investigative reporting. Here you aren't hobnobbing with celebrities, you are developing contacts in the records department of various firms, interviewing recently fired or retired employees who have an axe to grind, analyzing disclosed activities of lobbyists, developing your own sources within Congress, and just generally pursuing a story with dogged and grim determination until you finally piece together the truth. And then, having the credibility to fearlessly communicate that to an audience, advertisers be damned. Stewart cannot do any of that. But he can point to the lack of it." The Link
I lean to the right on economic issues and I am in the investment business. I love what Jon Stewart is doing. When it comes to finance, people are incredibly ignorant and gullible. Its the only way a Madoff could happen. Cramer and his ilk tap into that. I dont even know if they do it on purpose. Stewart is a debunker. He hates the ******** and calls out anybody on it. All he did was shove Cramers ridiculous rants up his ***. When he showed the deposition in which Cramer admitted he did basic pump and dump ******** when he ran his hedge fund, Cramer really didnt have a decent explanation. Dick Fuld got $500 million to drive Lehman Brothers and its investors, clients and employees into the ground. If that isnt the epitome of a rigged game I dont know what is. Nobody made these ******** get on TV and portray themselves as experts. Now that the emperor has been found, yet again, to have no clothes, they are fair game. I have been watching this all along and Stewart actually took his foot off the gas. He could have rolled tape all night and just crushed Cramer. I thought both sides actually handled the whole thing like big boys.
Thank goodness bulzak and a few others towards the end of this thread are pulling it back on topic. As much as some of you insist upon seeing this through a partisan lense (and I really don't know why) this was not a partisan interview.