Also, I got to catch about 10 minutes of Mad Money yesterday- 2 or 3 times Jim defended his 'comic' anecdotes, which I think is fine, he said he wants to continue to entertain while giving advice in finance. At the same time, he seemed a bit subdued, no yelling, calm, somber voice- and I won't say it's because of what happened Thursday- because I can't say for sure, but it would seem like it could have been. Did anyone else catch Mad Money yesterday?
Am I to understand that when a comedian discusses financial journalism with a guy that has a 30 year plus career as a financial industry insider the comedian has an overwhelming advantage? You gotta be shitting me. They werent talking quantum physics. Wall Street subject matter is in Cramers wheelhouse. That made his beatdown all the more telling.
UTChe, I'm not taking your bait. I would just be paraphrasing the same things the other folks here said- as I agree with them. It doesn't matter if it was wise or not, perhaps brave. Cramer was given the chance to defend himself, he couldn't- the discussion was one of the more memorable interviews on TV in a long time. Just re-read this thread UTChe.
It sounds like you are the one who needs to reread. I was involved in a discussion about whether Cramer was dumb to accept the invite. If you don't have an opinion on the matter than why the hell did you call me out? Who was baiting whom?
I didn't call you out, I was pointing out that you were well behind in this discussion, and it might do well to quit a fruitless point while behind on the scoreboard so far. I like it better when the discussion is focused on the topic, rather than the imaginary debate scorecard.
mia, good point, but i think that going after a business guy like cramer (albeit a lifelong Dem and Obama supporter) is a bit predictable. particularly when he only did it after Cramer started bashing Obama. why not give it to Barney Frank who is far more guilty than Cramer will ever be in this whole fiasco?
So let me understand.. many people on here are dismissing the Daily Show and Stewart because they feel he is a partisan hack who only rips Republicans and defends Obama. They use this argument to dismiss the Cramer interview, yet Cramer is a Democrat who voted for Obama. That argument doesn't really hold water.
fair enough....overall Stewart drives me nuts, but this was a fair bashing of Cramer, who i like nonetheless (even though i rarely watch him, i do respect his knowledge even if he is a bit annoying and a social liberal).
Fairly persuasive argument that Stewart is a kingmaker and that he, more than anybody else, elected Obama. Mind you, this is not coming from some random blog, but from Editor and Publisher magazine: The Link
I just read that article and I didn't see anything about Stewart being a kingmaker; only "helping", which is true of basically anyone who ever showed even the most minor willingness to critique McCain/Palin. TDS's mocking of Obama's stammering and grandiosity during the Democratic primary sure didn't do Obama any favors. The Daily Show was just about the only place John McCain could reliably go to when his primary campaign was in the dregs. Beyond that, was The Daily Show audience ever going to do anything but vote for the Democrat?
I'm not connecting the dots on how CNBC is at all to blame because they give ****** financial advice, and are cheerleaders at times. Let's pretend a world in which CNBC was on top of all of this a year ago and told all viewers that **** would hit the fan. Their viewers who took action would benefit, but the other people's 401k's would be ****** even worse. Complain about your financial advisor giving bad advice, not a television station.
CNBC is to blame for the fact that CNBC sucks. The Daily Show's milieu is media critique, not giving national policy advice.
Grove Totally agree. But, is there any chance of a station like CNBC doing anything but sucking? I say there isn't. So, what's the f'ing outrage? Move along, nothing happening here.
The press is the fourth estate, whose importance is codified in the first amendment to the U.S. constitution. If the media fails (which it largely has done for the last two decades) then the people are unable to properly check the excesses of the power classes (governmental and financial). Your own disinterest aside, it is quite important for media critics to do what they can to keep the media establishment on the right path (or, at least, off of a blatantly terrible path).
Agree on the role of media critics. My cynicism is born of the business model. CNBC is in business to sell ad time. Their rates depend on their attracting their targeted viewership segment. They run programming offerings to attract that segment. I'm guessing what skills they do have are pretty good at knowing what that segment wants. They could offer different programming, and perhaps hurt their business. Not that profitability should trump good reporting. It just does, given the realities of the situation. So, I'm resigned to suckitude in this, along with the aforementioned list of other unpleasant realities. Stewart may as well as criticize the rest of commercial television, all segments. Its a great business model for the critic, however.
