Jim Cramer on Jon Stewart: Holy Cow!
I signed on to comment on someone else's post, but no one has talked about this yet.
Jon Stewart ripped Jim Cramer a new one on television tonight. Cramer was on the verge of tears. Wow. I loved it, but I cringed the entire time (I know, I shouldn't have). Stewart was not playing around, making nice or being cute this time. This is the Stewart that hooked me on the Daily Show back in the fall of 2001.
What do you all make of this?
Advertisement
Stewart was fair and even-handed with Cramer. The whole show was pretty intense, and they only played about half of the interview. Not sure if the rest will be shown tomorrow night. Why does it take a comedy show to ask the tough questions that everyone else is afraid to ask?
March 12, 2009 11:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
When everyone else's tongues are held by politics, I reckon we depend on the jester's candor.
March 12, 2009 11:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
We really should put an end to the characterization of politics as somehow intrinsically evil. There are evil politicians, to be sure, but we should recognize good people and fair mindedness and honor these people for their even-handedness.
It is truly unfortunate it has come down to the jester to speak truth to power.
March 13, 2009 1:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not the lying politicians that are the problem. It's the press that fails to call them out on lies. They lie as much as they do because they are not held accountable, except by a funny guy on comedy central. pathetic.
March 13, 2009 7:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure it's politics that's holding their tongues as much as it is MONEY. I feel that media consolidation in to the hands of so few large corporations is at the root of the problem with the media. That is just one of the many diseases killing our democracy and brought to us by modern Republicanism.
Wealthy elites have patiently maneuvered over the years to gain control of our key democratic institutions; the media, Congress, the White House. Now, that control is threatened and we see them fighting back, such as with the broad and nearly uniform media attacks on Obama.
Geez! Has nearly every government decision made by and since Reagan worked to destroy all that was built in the 200 years before? These people aren't conservative, they are radical. Republicanism since maybe, Nixon, and since at least Reagan, is radical anti-Americanism.
Anti-Americanism is, to my thinking, any action which seeks to subvert the CONSTITUTION, either in letter or in spirit. Americanism, to my thinking, is not defined by support of the military, or of the President, or (especially) of some political party. Americanism is the support and defense of the Constitution. Period. Just as our political and military leaders all swear an oath to do. Nixon (Watergate), Reagan (Iran-Contra), Gingrich (Clinton impeachment), Bush Jr. (well, you name it!) have all done everything possible, wittingly or unwittingly, to subvert the Constitution.
While I feel the majority of Americans now recognize that Republicans don't have any answers going forward, I'm not sure how many realize just how anti-American (anti-Constitution) Republicans have been, and still are. The Republican base obviously seems to realize this least of all.
March 13, 2009 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
New10, you are spot on. Without the corporate media, it is unlikely Bush would have prevailed in 2004. They did did exactly what Stewart so deftly pointed out last night. They ask no pointed questions & embellished the lies being told.
There has to be some form of regulation, not the Fairness Doctrine, it is outdated, but something. Honest news has to be a given. It is especially egregious on cable.
Jon Stewart is a past master at investagating journalism, too bad he selected comedy ........or is it? Any body have an old clip of Jon handing Tucker Carlson his head?
March 13, 2009 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was glued to my tv during that interview. It was brilliant, Jon Stewart was brilliant -as always. I wanted to cry and scream while Jon told Cramer that they knew about the shady things that Wall Street does but they chose to keep their viewers in the dark. Whose side are they on? Who is their target audience?
March 13, 2009 12:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bizzaro Superman. That is what I think. A Parallel Universe.
I will watch it again at midnitehere, and probably tomorrow at noon. hahahhaahahahahah
You had to have known before you came on that Stewart was not going to sit there and make too many fart jokes. One clip after another clip after another clip of cramer perpetrating felonies. hahahahahahahaha
March 13, 2009 12:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
The AP is drastically misquoting Stewart in it's write-up of tonight's interview, linked on the TPM frontpage.
The AP Journalist writes:
[Stewart] alleged CNBC was ultimately in bed with the businesses it covered — that regular people's stocks and 401Ks were "capitalizing on your adventure."
What Stewart actually said was that 401ks were "capitalizing your adventure." The AP's addition completely and unambiguously reverses the meaning of the statement, attributing to Stewart the exact opposite of what he actually said, and a fairly important statement at that.
I shudder to think how many news outlets will carry this misquote tomorrow, which really robs all substance from the message Stewart was conveying.
March 13, 2009 12:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I expect nothing more from the AP, and expected nothing less from Jon Stewart. He was terrific.
March 13, 2009 12:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice catch. What is happening to AP? someone needs to set up an AP-watch. When the wire-services can't get the basic facts straight anymore, we're in real trouble. They're like the ratings agencies of the media market: fundamental to the industry yet with skewed incentives...
March 13, 2009 7:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
What do you mean, "IS happening"?
This started back when Ron Fournier took over for Sandy Johnson as the Washington bureau chief. AP decided to ditch its (hugely successful) "just-the-facts" reporting style.
Since then, hacks like Nedra Pickler, Charles Babington, Beth Fouhy, Jennifer Loven and other assorted dimwits have put the AP's journalistic integrity on a par with California's credit rating.
March 13, 2009 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I did see it, it was intense, it wasn't couched in humor--the moment of zen was interesting too. Apparently Jim Cramer went on Martha Stewart today and she was trying to equate Jon Stewart with Twitter--it was her attempt at snark, I think. (She represents the very class of people that I can't tolerate.)
There is an interesting dynamic going on that I'd like to mention, it moves slightly off topic but it warrants further discussion.
Now that Wall Street has pretty much sold us up the river it's the Pentagon's turn--selling us on more war. It just seems that kind of rhetoric is escalating again--especially with Obama's recent call for new sanctions on Iran.
March 13, 2009 12:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
The part that bothers me is that Stewart kept saying that Wall Street was being reckless with Main Street's money. That comment showed that Stewart really doesn't know very much about how finance and banking work. But it certainly makes him sound good in front of his audience.
March 13, 2009 12:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
so whose money did Wall Street clusterf@#ked?
March 13, 2009 7:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Everybody but lost money. But Wall Street's "Sherman march" was not financed by our 401k's. I don't understand why Stewart says that. Bear Stearns did not lever up by raiding your or my 401k.
March 13, 2009 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill - you're in finance. I've worked in the trading room of a mid-size firm. So i don't think I'm naive nor excessively suspicious about what happens there. But I don't quite see your problem with what Stewart says. I'd like to hear the full argument from you, though. If you have the time and inclination to post it. You probably won't get a very friendly reception, but it's an important case to make - too much group-think isn't a good thing...
March 13, 2009 7:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
My point is that I disagree with Stewart's claim that Main Street's money is "capitalizing" Wall Street's "adventure".
I interpreted his comment as to imply that banks like Bear Stearns used Main Street's money to go out and level themselves up to issue CDOs and MBSs. Unfortunately it's not that black&white as he's portraying it.
Do you think I'm misinterpreting what he said?
March 13, 2009 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, ok. But it's hard not to simplify things somewhat, he's got to do that. I think he's right in one round-about way: what the bail-out involves now is a massive shift of liabilities from wall street to main street - i.e. tax payers; probably ultimately 2-3 trillion when all is said and done. i don't think it should be done, but it looks likely nevertheless. And he and many others are right in being angry about it...
March 13, 2009 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. And the bailout is something that Rick Santelli of CNBC has been very critical of. CNBC is not as biased as people think. Santelli and Haines are very anti-government involvement in the crisis. They'd rather have seen firms that made bad decisions go under. But they are just reporters and commentators. It's not their job and they shouldn't be criticized for somehow letting this happen.
When was the last time that Jon Stewart had Chris Dodd or Barney Frank or Richard Shelby or Dick Fuld or Angelo Mozilo on his show? Those are the people he should be putting through the ringer.
March 13, 2009 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS - "simplifying" is not synonymous with "misrepresenting" or "sensationalizing"
March 13, 2009 8:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why did my 401(k) lose 50% again?
March 13, 2009 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
My point is that I disagree with Stewart's claim that Main Street's money (ie your 401k) was "capitalizing" Wall Street's "adventure"
Bear Stearns did not raid your 401k piggy bank. They levered up by issuing bonds sold to the market, not by pilfering retirement accounts.
Maybe I am taking him too literally
March 13, 2009 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis In 2002-03 US financial firms took in excess of 40% of the profits that accrued to all US corporations. In 1988 when Reagan left office, the same figure was 18%.
Some say the only reason GM made cars was so they could make money financing the loans. The profits from debt & interest come from the consumer, on mainstreet.
March 13, 2009 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Huh?? Are you lumping GM in and calling it a finance company and part of the 40%.
Lots of the profits of the banks came from corporations, not just consumers. In 2006 JPMorgan's retail and card divisions generated slightly less than half the firm's profits. The rest came from investment banking, corporate banking, treasury services, etc.
Places like Goldman, Merrill, etc would be even more skewed towards corporations providing the lion share of the firms' profits.
March 13, 2009 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Duh, yes I am saying GM has a finance company, it is called GMAC financial Services.
The reason GM, GE and other companies with financial related services are in trouble is the easy money ended when the debt bubble burst, and many were leveraged 30/1 on the debt (debt equity-1, leverage -30). In an economy based 70% on consumer spending, the loan sharking money is made off of mainstreet.
March 13, 2009 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a new one. Most people have blamed Bear, Lehman, AIG, Fannie, Freddie, Countrywide, IndyMac, etc.
But if you want to blame GE and GM that's your right.
I still don't think that GM is who Stewart was referring to when he criticized Wall Street for using Main Street to "capitalize its adventure".
But if you want to think that Stewart was blaming GM and GE, go ahead.
March 13, 2009 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dorn - PS, you never responded to my post with the video's of Santelli ranting against the TARP. Do you still think he's a hypocrite and one who's been silent on the bailout?
March 13, 2009 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
Put on the bullshit goggles . . .
Ol' waste of bandwidth, hedge fund pro MiddleClassBull is at it again.
In is out and up is down -- let's all play on the merry-go-round.
~OGD~
March 13, 2009 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hate to pimp my own diary, but I did running liveblog of it on TPM and Daily Kos.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/superbowlxx/2009/03/cramer-v-stewart-the-liveblog.php
I rec'd your post as payment for letting me shamelessly plug my own. :)
March 13, 2009 12:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
And a great job you did too!
March 13, 2009 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, but I liked both. I just really like the run down you gave. I have tried to do that in the past and all I ended up with was dadaism.
March 13, 2009 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, worthless, I love the avatar. Never before now did I ever consider Mr. Rogers as a potential terrorist, but just what do you suppose he was going to do with that shoe, eh? I sure hope the Dept. of Homeland Security is keeping an eye out for him in the event he surfaces sometime soon.
I missed the Jon Stewart performance. I got wrapped up instead watching Syracuse beat UConn - 6 ot's. I can't wait to watch the reruns of the program. Cramer deserves all he can get, and I can imagine how nicely Stewart dishes it out.
March 13, 2009 1:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's up at Comedy Central.
=D
March 13, 2009 8:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just the link I needed! Thanks.
March 13, 2009 9:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am glad that Cramer vid from thestreet.com went viral. Stewart dropped it on Cramer like an anvil. "Roll 210" "Roll 212"
Whomever originally dug up that video deserves some major props.
March 13, 2009 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
I started watching that game with about 10 minutes to go in the second half. Little did I know I'd be up past 1 a.m. Worth every second, too.
March 13, 2009 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed! I thought it was certainly over in fine fashion at the end of regulation with Drebendorf's three. Little did I know... Even I was worn out by the time the buzzer went off for the final time. Great stuff!
March 13, 2009 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm *still* buzzed about that game. Six OTs - and Syracuse was fighting uphill the whole way until pretty much all of UConn's starters fouled out.
Hope the Orange got a lot of sleep and a 1pm wake-up call. They gotta be able to guard a bunch of jumpshooters tonight.
March 13, 2009 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope he hammered Cramer. I will be looking for it now.
March 13, 2009 9:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the link, Bwakfat!
This is unbelievable! How 'bout Jon Stewart for Chair of the SEC? Incredible that he is the one - a comedian - who actually goes a long way toward getting to the bottom of this.
Where's all the change we can believe in now? Your turn, Prez Obama. Wanna' restore confidence in the markets? How 'bout a few indictments on Wall Street? And then how 'bout an explanation from Paulson, Bernanke, Summers, and all the rest as to why they should be trusted at all within 1000 miles of our Treasury? It ain't like they can claim ignorance of all the short term gambling with our IRA's that went on as described so clearly by Stewart.
Maybe a separate blog.... I get so angry just thinking about the arrogance and greed of these players - and the duplicity of the SEC and our media (CNBC, etc.) in leading us like sheep to the slaughter.
March 13, 2009 9:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hear you, Studs.
Have a little patience. Cleaning up Wall Street is a lot like choking off a roach infestation. The work's happening, but it takes time to spray all the nests. :-)
March 13, 2009 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just thinkiung... Could you imagine Studs Terkel interviewing Jon Stewart? Wouldn't that have been worth tuning into?
March 13, 2009 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd actually skip work for that one.
March 13, 2009 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jon Confirmed what I have been saying for many years. The Daily Show may be funny and some times silly, but they are honest. (not always fair, but honest.) Which is more then i can say for most if not all media outlets.
Jon Stewart may be out there to get laughs most of the time but what he puts out is the real news with usually a funny slant.
Last night was another example of how he can keep it real and he is really the only TV news I trust. Of course I still know when he is the "fake news guy" and when he is the only real news guy.
March 13, 2009 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Of course I still know when he is the "fake news guy" and when he is the only real news guy."
How?
March 13, 2009 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought Stewart was fair. Sometimes being fair means being a bit harsh. It's the first time I've seen Cramer show any humility at all. I do wonder how he still gets to have a career after this. He will, of course, but it doesn't make sense.
March 13, 2009 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Meh. Cramer's an entertainer, not an analyst. Anyone who took him seriously deserves what they got.
Incidentally, the same goes for Jon Stewart.
March 13, 2009 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
That. Was. The. Goofiest. Comment. Ever..
Jon Stewart is a corres-pundit on the Comedy Channel and a long-time comedic writer and actor.
Jim Cramer is a former hedge fund manager who's made a lot of money selling books on finance and hosting/appearing on numerous programs.
Either you're being intentionally misleading or just outright dim. Either way, you're doing a quality impersonation of Megyn Kelly.
March 13, 2009 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
.
Kudos . . .
Boyd shoots ... and scores!
El Be-es-o is not dim.
Sooooo . . . that leaves you with?
~OGD~
March 13, 2009 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, it's a false choice. El Piss-o is both dim and intentionally misleading. I think rationally he knows better, but politically he has to support his party no matter what. Zom-Bush!!!
March 13, 2009 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
John Stewart is a comedian chiefly famous for doing a poor impression of the former President's giggle.
Jim Cramer has a cable news show where he touts stocks in a fast-paced, analysis-free environment. Cramer is a smart guy and in his hedge fund days was a good manager. That doesn't mean that anyone should listen to his show. He's like Sean Hannity (or Jon Stewart); not bad entertainment, but not to be taken seriously.
Elevating the likes of these two to the level of serious discourse is like calling John Grisham "Literature".
March 13, 2009 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's just bunch of rubbish. Have you even seen the Interview? When you dismiss Cramer or Stewart just as entertainers, you just come across as quasi-academia.
Jon is an entertainer, but he's also a regular social critic. Jim Cramer and CNBC, despite all the shenanigans, have certain level of investor attention and influence on the market.
Last night was an important piece of journalism long over due. I'm just glad Jon Stewart has place in our popular media- especially as a person on the left- I'm really glad.
March 13, 2009 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I agree with Presidente. Cramer's show is shown at 6pm when most finance types are on their way home from work. Cramer's show is on for entertainment value. He's in the same evening lineup as O'Reilly, Hannity and Greta. Enough said.
March 13, 2009 11:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cramer advertises himself as a financial analyst/expert. His networks advertise him as the same.
There is no disclaimer on any of his shows saying, "The following is for entertainment value and should not be used in making any investment or financial decisions."
His books do not portray him as an entertainer, but rather as a financial expert.
His chyrons do not say "Entertainer". They say "Author", "Analyst", "Financial Expert".
Cramer isn't worth much as a financial expert, but since that's how he makes his money, that's how he's going to be judged. Any attempt to explain him otherwise will be rightly regarded as intellectually vapid apologia.
March 16, 2009 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's a big disclaimer at the beginning of his show, actually.
What part of the following do you not consider to be an adequate disclaimer?
"All opinions expressed by Jim Cramer on this show are solely his and do not reflect the opinions of CNBC, NBC UNIVERSAL or their parent company or affiliates. Cramer's opinions are based upon information he considers reliable, but neither CNBC nor its affiliates and/or subsidiaries warrant its completeness or accuracy, and it should not be relied upon as such. Cramer's statements and opinions are subject to change without notice. No part of Cramer's compensation from CNBC is related to the specific opinions he expresses.
"Past performance is not indicative of future results. Neither Cramer nor CNBC guarantees any specific outcome or profit. You should be aware of the real risk of loss in following any strategy or investment discussed on the show. Strategies or investments discussed may fluctuate in price or value. Investors may get back less than invested.
"Investments or strategies mentioned in this show may not be suitable for you. This material does not take into account your particular investment objectives, financial situation or needs and is not intended as recommendations appropriate for you. You must make an independent decision regarding investments or strategies mentioned on the show.
"Before acting on information in the show, you should consider whether it is suitable for your particular circumstances and strongly consider seeking advice from your own financial or investment adviser."
March 16, 2009 10:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
The part that says he's not a financial expert, that he's an entertainer, and that his advice should not be given any legitimacy.
The three parts, in other words, that aren't in the Mad Money intro (which is obviously there to cover CNBC's legal derriere...which in turn makes one wonder why they put Cramer on the air on an "allegedly serious" business network in the first place).
Cramer can't justify his actions any more than CNBC can justify showing him after running a 30-second disclaimer.
March 18, 2009 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is a very clear disclaimer. So I'm not sure why you said there isn't one.
March 18, 2009 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
March 13, 2009 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have no problem with Jon Stewart having a place in the popular media; but it's the same place occupied by Bill O'Reilly and Jim Cramer. A place much more focused on entertainment than information.
I'm not too concerned with how I come across; I am concerned that people take Jim Cramer seriously (and say, invest in Bear Stearns), or take Jon Stewart seriously (even when he's momentarily forgotten to do jokes).
My point is that Jim Cramer and CNBC shouldn't have investor attention.
March 13, 2009 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
My point is that Jim Cramer and CNBC shouldn't have investor attention.
Exactly, and the Interview last night demonstrated that in no uncertain terms.
March 13, 2009 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Has anyone on CNBC say "To a certain extent, I think Jon Stewart is right"?
Because as of 1:37pm ET, I see 7 squawking heads on CNBC cheerleading as opposed to reporting.
March 13, 2009 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
CNBC will publicly agree with any part of Stewart's interview right after Karl Rove confesses to having sandbagged Donn Siegelman.
March 13, 2009 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink