Looking Back John Stewart's Interview with Jim Cramer
Well, at this point everyone's seen or at least heard from those who saw Jim Cramer on The Daily Show last week. The interview capped off a week-long feud between Cramer and host Jon Stewart. Overall, Stewart took the Mad Money host, and the show's network, CNBC, to task for its failure to warn investors of the inevitable financial crisis. Cramer countered some of Stewart's rhetorical indictments and damning video footage with his own debate tactic: repeated apologies and seeming contrition.
But while you may have formed your own opinions about the show's content, how do you really know what you saw until you find out what everyone else is saying? I mean, if Jon Stewart and The Daily Show have taught us anything, it's the importance of buying into public perceptions of reported discourse, right?
With that in mind, I was asked to plough through the oodles of Indecision comments as well as the media at large to find out what really happened. My findings were intensely varied, but one thing became clear: many Daily Show viewers, inexplicably, do not understand how to spell Jon Stewart. (I counted over 100 spellings of "John.")
The comments pretty much broke down like this…
The overwhelming majority lauded Jon for his efforts, calling him everything from "smart" to a "patriot" to a "real journalist." Most felt Stewart had the courage, intelligence, and eloquence to say what should have been said by journalists and regulators years ago, and although this article provides a sampling of voices, that overall take should not be lost. Rather than fill this article with all the praise Stewart received, I thought I'd boil them all down to one fictitious comment…
EDWARD R. MURROW HAD SEX WITH THE STATUE OF LIBERTY WHO GAVE BIRTH TO JON STEWART WHO THEN WENT ON TO SAVE OUR NATION.
That pretty much sums up the praise in one perfect sex-based sentence.
Of course, I should probably mention that fancypants Andrew Sullivan who encapsulated Stewart's value in one fairly literate sentence even if he doesn't have my gift for fictitious procreation-based metaphor…
There is a cloying familiarity among many cable show hosts and television personalities. We all have to get along, even though some of us may believe that others of us are very much part of the problem, rather than the solution. And what Stewart has done is rip off that little band-aid of faux solidarity for a modicum of ethical and moral accountability.
On the other side, a minority view bashed Stewart, ascribing his attack on Jim Cramer to purely to political bias…
"Jon Stewart… is a political hitman for the Democratic Party. Anybody says anything negative about his party, they get slammed on the air."
Comment by Patrick — March 13, 2009 @ 8:35 am
Joe Scarborough also felt the need to break the interview down by political analysis on his Twitter account…
Joe Scarborough on Twitter: "Cramer just sat there and took his medicine. He's clearly shaken that his fellow Democrats have turned on him."
(I don't follow Joe on Twitter. Are all his comments like this? "11:20 p.m. Eating a Twinkie more loaded with fats and sweets than Obama's stimulus bill.")
* * *
Perhaps, because Stewart's destruction of Cramer was so thorough and expertly achieved, few commenters felt the need to bash Cramer further, although several did give him credit for taking his beating with class.
[Cramer] listened maturely and patiently to the brutal and painfully accurate criticisms levied by Jon with an ear open genuinely to learn how to make himself better.
This seemed like such an ass-kicking because Cramer was open to criticism, and that should be respected and treated with dignity.
Comment by Tim Richardson — March 13, 2009 @ 4:25 am
So while most believed that Cramer gave the most unsettling performance since Ned Beatty in Deliverance, many (including me frankly) believed he made the most he possibly could of out the situation by expressing contrition and avoiding Tucker Carlson's 2004 indignation on Crossfire. That sentiment was also echoed by Gawker who reported that…
[W]ith Cramer seemingly apologizing for everything CNBC has ever aired, Stewart couldn't uppercut CNBC the way he did CNN and its Crossfire co-host Tucker Carlson a few years ago.
He was left to deliver (still very good!) packaged lines and videos and counter whatever coherent arguments he could distill from Cramer's sputtering.
(On an unrelated note, they also have insight into Lindsay Lohan's "Crazy Tweets!")
* * *
Of course, the most interesting criticisms were not based on politics or personality, but on the roles of The Daily Show and Mad Money. Much in the way Stewart schooled Begala and Carlson in 2004 for failing to do their job as reporters, Stewart attacked Cramer and CNBC for merely perpetuating notions of market strength and corporate solvency offered by self-interested CEOs and hedge fund managers. But is that a perfect analogy? Some commenters claimed they never really viewed CNBC as journalists in the first place:
CNBC's prerogative is not to pursue investigative reporting. This is where Stewart is confused. All those shows that air during market hours are intended to cover what is currently moving the market… Should CNBC actually try to be a news channel that covers news like CNN, with a focus on financials? Maybe. But I would prefer to watch CNN's financial reporters to do this job.
Comment by David — March 13, 2009 @ 11:03 am
These viewers see Cramer's Mad Money as sort of a fake financial show in the same way that the The Daily Show is a fake news show. And as such, feel Stewart himself could be brought down by the same kind of interview tactic.
This would be the same as Television and Print Journalist inviting John Stewart into an pseudo interview where they essentially point out all hypocritical things that he does on his show as well as his support for politicians who in hindsight did not deserve the recognition and accolade's he accords them.
Comment by Robert — March 13, 2009 @ 3:36 am
While that assertion might be somewhat attenuated, it indicates a discomfort a small percentage of viewers feel in The Daily Show's mixture of comedy and hard reporting (even if it is self-professed "fake reporting").
I enjoy that Jon Stewart goes after people, I do. However, I get tired of him torching people and then acting like he's just some show with 'fart sounds.' So he can say whatever he wants about anyone and if they dare question him or take issue with what he's saying, he can just say, "This is a comedy show, come on! Now, let's get back to me telling you how awful you are."
Comment by China Brown — March 13, 2009 @ 3:26 am
Or maybe ReneeS has it right? Perhaps, Jon Stewart has accepted that he fills a void left by a deficient media and labels his show fake news only out of a sense of humility and manners?
You can't hide behind the "Just a Comedian" label anymore, Jon. This interview was the best piece of journalism we've seen this year…."The Daily Show" is what remains of our fourth estate. THANK YOU!!!
Comment by ReneeS — March 13, 2009 @ 11:07 am
RSS
Thanks to Jon for doing real reporting not fake news that the 24 hour stations are giving us. If CNBC is a financial news station, they should be doing investigative journalism not just believing what a CEO is telling them. Since when is accepting a guilty persons's story as fact journalism? I loved Jon's description of them being an infomercial for Wall Street. Sad but true. Keep the pressure on them please, not just on Cramer but all the financial "reporters"!
If Cramer took it like Ned Beatty in "Deliverance," what does that make Jon?
*Coincidentally, I made the same comparison to a friend this weekend and thought that Cramer was a shell of himself after the interview. How you feel after watching that scene — that uncomfortable typical "I don't like seeing men raped" type of warm and fuzzy — was exactly how I felt during the interview. Has Ned Beatty done anything since the Superman flicks? Also, did he get future roles b/c Hollywood felt bad for him after Deliverance? I felt bad for Cramer as I wrote earlier; just like one should for Ned Beatty. The reason the analogy ultimately doesn't play out is because there aren't many inbred Jews.
\Is it right?\ vs \Is it illegal?\ Wall Street, the Medal of Honor and the Pope
Keep up the good work… John!!!!! Keep shining the light….
Regarding your discussion about Jim Cramer and Wall Street…
The high rollers at the center of our financial meltdown have a similar concept of moral relativism:
They don’t ask: “Is what I’m doing right and fair?”
Instead they ask: “Is this illegal?” a euphemism for “If caught, can I be prosecuted?”
A guaranteed $30 million golden parachute payout even if a company fails and all the workers are fired… not illegal.
Wall Street developing, trading and dealing in securities secured by…. nothing…not illegal.
That is the core of the problem; the people who rise to these positions either do not possess or have lost the capability to ask “Is this right and fair?”
They do not care. They are financially wealthy but morally bankrupt narcissists who only care about their wealth and position.
They then link up with similar greedy people on each other’s Board of Directors, kiss each other's butt and further corrupt the system.
They view everyone else as “losers”.
They vilify a family that bought a house thinking it would appreciate in value. Why did THAT family buy THAT house? GREED! Perhaps the family bought it because they realized that a college education is going to cost $200,000 and a house was a good investment.
This is why the Pope said (paraphrased): “It is a sin to accumulate massive wealth at the expense of many others.” Why this explanation: Because the money lovers above do not think they are “greedy” they are just “Capitalist” and the average American is stupid and just “does not understand capitalism.”
A Vietnam Medal of Honor Recipient was quoted as saying “What good is money if you lose your country?”
And worst, eventually \honest and caring\ people get disgusted with the system (politics, business etc) and leave.
Thank you John Stewart for shining the light on these hearts of darkness that are “legally” destroying America.
Army Vet
"Thank you John Stewart for shining the light on these hearts of darkness that are “legally” destroying America.
Army Vet"
What do you think of Stuart now Gladrock?
Cramer’s show plays to people who think they can be day traders. The problem is there is a huge difference between the people who think they can be day traders and the people who actually can be day traders successfully.
You can hardly cite the Cramer interview as Jon going after conservatives. Cramer is a democrat, a liberal, and has donated to the DNC and to Democratic candidates in the past.
As for what CNBC should be: I hate to say it, but it should have shows like Cramers. But it should have more serious shows than fluff shows. It should have serious and investigative type of reporting. Otherwise, they are nothing more than market cheerleaders. Go Bulls! Sis-boom-bah!
Jon doesn't hide behind "I'm just a comedian". Like he said in the show, he tells people he's a snake-oil salesman. TDS makes fun of the politicians and news coverage in general. No one tunes into TDS for all of their daily news coverage. And they aren’t on there every night cheerleading anyone. Sure, they have been harder on the GOP. But you have to admit, the GOP has been making the biggest blunders over the last 8-9 years. When you are in charge, the big blunders are your.
Give the Dems a chance. I’m sure they can equal the GOP’s level of stupidity given enough time.
Take a look at Jim Cramer's MSFT recommendations over a 2 year period. You can see that he flip-flopped quit a bit and likely lost viewers money.
http://www.stocktagger.com/2007/07/jim-cramer-microsoft-corporation-msft.html
I tried following Cramer's advice, but kept losing my ass on my one share of Cisco stock and one share of IBM. He got what he deserved. Make that St. Jon Stewart.
Thank you Jon. I can not understnad why these people like Cramer are still on the air after they were so wrong so many times. Cramer did not take the criticism by listening "maturely and patiently" with an "open ear", before he came on the show and didn't have a choice but to listen, he went on every possible venue whining that he was "taken out of context" and that Jon Stweart was just a "comedian", ie isn't a real journalist or financial expert like Cramer.
but I was disappointed that Jon did not challenge Cramer for his loud criticism of Obama's handling of the economy, proclaiming in angry, fear mongering blurps the disaster coming from the stimulus and other policies. my god, this man has no shame and appraently no insight. Hypocrisy personifed. He did n't see this economic tsunami coming but now he wants people to take him seriously as he tries to capsize the lifeboat.
why is he still on all these shows. why is Cheney being given air time to tells us what Obama is doing wrong? why is Buchanan, the racist, bigoted has been on TV running his mouth everyday?
why are the cable shows catering to the people who got us in this mess?
Sorry you lost money in the stock market Jon. So did Warren Buffett (-50%) but he isn't whining.
If you are looking for someone to blame, look no further than Alan Greenspan…you will need to get your hands dirty reading the rational he and his critics posit. And, perhaps learn enough to make your own 'correct' investment decisions, in the future. Then please reveal to us know the best investments.
Lousy choices in your 401(k) like ours?
Jon the Stern Taskmaster was painful to watch…on the Comedy Channel
Jon's admirable and consistent criticism of the lack of responsible reporting and journalistic integrity has always been engaging and thought-provoking. His willingness to look beyond the superficial (as much of the press is unable to do anymore, even just by judging various reactions to this interview from the MSM) and ask the questions that should have been asked long beforehand is still refreshing and cathartic. His willingness, also, to always emphasize the fact that he is STILL a satirist reflects how truly responsible he is to his audience. He doesn't ask to be treated as the next Murrow; he doesn't ask that his opinions be taken as fact because he knows and we know that he is NOT an expert, by any means. For these reasons, I have respected him and still do after so many years of watching this show.