Jon Stewart vs. Jim Cramer

[Donziweasel]

IMHO, Cramer should have never gone to that interview. Stewart literally destroyed the man. The tape clips from 2006 were shocking. This is a man who reports and gives advice on financial markets. It shows how the press can influence markets with no one to answer to. It also shows what happens when the press is basically criminal in it's reporting of those markets.

In the end, Cramers ratings are already down 25% and Stewarts up 25%. It was impressive to see a comedian face down a financial expert.

[superhatz]

It was brutal....I had to cover my eyes a few times....

[BUIZILLA]

It also shows what happens when the press is basically criminal in it's reporting of those markets. 10-4 on that.... let's see how well CNBC and the NY Times survive their support for Oby...

[Donziweasel]

let's see how well CNBC and the NY Times survive their support for Oby...

CNBC may never recover. I'm not kidding. A comedian on Comedy Central took a part a financial expert beasically at will. Cramer had no defense, just "I need to do better". The 2006 tapes of telling people how to "pump and dump" and how to screw with a hedgefund were sickening.

This is a man who gave financial advice to millions.

Since in this economy and political situation I have had no hero's, I think I have found one, Jon Stewart of all people.

[MOP]

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/13/fight-night-cramer-vs-stewart/?em

[Donziweasel]

I don't know how many of you saw Jon Stewart on CNN's Crossfire, but another great interview. Basically went on the attack, although Crossfire tried to push back. My favorite part was when Carlson told Jon that he was not asking hard hitting questions of John Kerry when he was on the show, just like Jon was accusing Crossfire. Jon replied "I have puppets making prank phone calls leading into my show, you are on CNN". Beautiful! Crossfire was canceled 3 months later.

Hail to my new hero!:beer:

[chappy]

Stewart only attacked CNBC after they started to take shots at Obama.

That's fact.

Stewart is a clown. He never has to be held accountable for his viewpoints or opinions. When questioned, he backpedals and says he's a comedian.

I think Cramer is a clown too. Anyone that makes their financial decisions based on what he says deserves to lose their money.

But Stewart has a political agenda, make no mistake about it.

Why did he wait so long to call out CNBC?

Cramer is an easy target, why doesn't he go after Barney Frank or Christopher Dodd?

Could it be they haven't questioned the current administration?:biggrin.:

[BUIZILLA]

Cramer is an easy target, why doesn't he go after Barney Frank or Christopher Dodd? I think Stewart is kinda quirky but i'd pay for front row tickets if Barney and Co. was interviewed :biggrin:

[Donziweasel]

Stewart is a clown. He never has to be held accountable for his viewpoints or opinions. When questioned, he backpedals and says he's a comedian.

Rich, that is the point. He is a clown and a comedian and makes no bones about it. When he gets pissed, he can be one of the best political intervierwers in the country. If you have not seen him on Crossfire, look it up on youtube. While Cramer may be a clown as well, Carlson and crew on Crossfire are consider serious political analysts.

I think what makes Jon a good political interviewer is that he doesn't care and has the balls to ask questions very few other will.


But Stewart has a political agenda, make no mistake about it.

I agree 1000%, but then again, who doesn't have a politcal agenda.


Cramer is an easy target, why doesn't he go after Barney Frank or Christopher Dodd?

Well, so far he is 2-0. I bet now that he has destroyed Cramer, and the benefit in his ratings, along with his great appareance on Crossfire, you will see him call out more and more media personality's that he feels have screwed America. I bet 100.00 bucks that in no way shape or form will any of his future targets go on his show. If anything, Crossfire and Cramer were just a warmup.

Chappy, I agree with you on alot of what you said, but that interview with Cramer was not done for Comedy. It was a very serious interview with hard hitting, well thought out questions no one else has had the balls to ask. I think he was genuinly pissed. Watch him when he tells Cramer that "this is not a F&^%ING joke".


Jon is a very intelligent guy and I am excited to see who he goes after next.....

[Donziweasel]

Why do I have a feeling Ghost is going to show up on this thread soon?:biggrin::yes:

[Ghost]

Stewart only attacked CNBC after they started to take shots at Obama.

That's fact.

Stewart is a clown. He never has to be held accountable for his viewpoints or opinions. When questioned, he backpedals and says he's a comedian.

I think Cramer is a clown too. Anyone that makes their financial decisions based on what he says deserves to lose their money.

But Stewart has a political agenda, make no mistake about it.

Why did he wait so long to call out CNBC?

Cramer is an easy target, why doesn't he go after Barney Frank or Christopher Dodd?

Could it be they haven't questioned the current administration?:biggrin.:

Very insightful and important points. I find myself incredibly torn on Stewart. Extremely funny and talented, and right about a lot of things, but far too selective in his criticism for much more respect as more than as a comedian with some edge. His best work is great, but his bias and shortcomings of intellectual honesty are subtle because they are manifested in what he doesn't say.

If he wants his real criticisms of serious matters taken seriously, then he shouldn't pull the chicken$hit backpeddle about puppets when he lobs softballs to John Kerry. Sure, his criticism of CNN is on track, but the criticism of him was on track too.

EDIT: oops, forgot this. IF he were to go after all sides' shortcomings with appropriate gravity I think he could be one of the best ever. But he overlooks the most serious crimes of the left far too often. Until he gets pissed enough at crooked behavior that he drops this selectivity, I can appreciate the accuracy of the things he does include, but always take him with a few grains of salt, knowing he is cheerleading for one of two parties, both of which are screwing us.

[Ghost]

Why do I have a feeling Ghost is going to show up on this thread soon?:biggrin::yes:

LOL!!! Hilarious!! You have me pegged to the posting minute!

[Donziweasel]

then he shouldn't pull the chicken$hit backpeddle about puppets when he lobs softballs to John Kerry. Sure, his criticism of CNN is on track, but the criticism of him was on track too.

His point is that he has a comedy show. Why did he go after Cramer? Who knows. Maybe he listened to him and lost money, maybe as an American, he blames the financial media (and rightly so IMO) for alot of this mess, maybe Cramer slept with his wife, who know?

Basically, Cramer would have on top CEO's, like the CEO of Bear Sterns, ask them how the company is doing, they would say great, and then, without any research, Cramer would say Buy Buy Buy. People listened. People lost. We all suffered due this type of BS journalism.

Remember, Jon started the interview by saying "we are both snakeoil salesmen, but I tout myself as one, you do not" or something to that effect.


LOL!!! Hilarious!! You have me pegged to the posting minute!

Hey, I like your analysis on these types of threads.:biggrin.:

[Ghost]

His point is that he has a comedy show. Why did he go after Cramer? Who knows. Maybe he listened to him and lost money, maybe as an American, he blames the financial media (and rightly so IMO) for alot of this mess, maybe Cramer slept with his wife, who know?

Basically, Cramer would have on top CEO's, like the CEO of Bear Sterns, ask them how the company is doing, they would say great, and then, without any research, Cramer would say Buy Buy Buy. People listened. People lost. We all suffered due this type of BS journalism.

Remember, Jon started the interview by saying "we are both snakeoil salesmen, but I tout myself as one, you do not" or something to that effect.

I'm a little confused on this one. I agree with Stewart's going after Cramer--no problem with what I've seen of it. And I agree with most of the people he goes after and much of the criticism he offers. My issue is the people he fails to go after, and the subjects he ignores.

From my perspective, a proper prioritizing of things that need skewering would produce a radically different set of targets than Stewart chooses. A random target generator would do so also, in that it doesn't select a party to support, but rather is an equal-opportunity critic.

With his history of selectivity in what he really lays into, Stewart allows me to to appreciate the targets he destroys, but forces me to temper my enthusiasm for his judgement and sense of fairness because of the hypocrisy in what he overlooks, or the way he tones down criticism of the left, or chooses real but insignificant topics to lampoon. I think this hypocrisy is easy to miss, because it is like a false negative--the hardest thing to detect.

But don't get me wrong, I am still a fan. I am just rooting for Stewart to come to his senses about the damage the Democratic party causes, and start using his powers for MORE good. The sad part is a lot of people, especially young people, are misled into thinking Stewart's overall judgement is right, when I think Stewart gets a lot of details right, but misses the big picture. (Or worse, deliberately distorts it through selective reporting.)

I think Stewart wants it both ways. He wants people to respect his balls and honesty, but his selectivity is a failing of both. But I remain a fan, and hold out hope that he will to eventually tumble to how much BOTH major parties are ruining us. That truth is what he needs to set him fully free. His snake oil comment is a disingenuous caveat in this sense--he wants people to respect his balls and honesty, no matter what he said about snake oil.

The other thing is that he also suffers from the classic critic's problem: his party is in power. He needs to speak truth to that power, but holds back too much. (For Colbert, who I find to be FAR more guilty of Stewart's shortcomings, to the point of being hopelessly intellectually dishonest, it is yet a far bigger problem that the Dems control the White House and Congress.)

EDIT: so, in short, I like Stewart in the same way that I like negative political ads. They both provide lots of good criticism of the things they attack. But we must remind ourselves that it is bad logic to think the criticism of one is an actual endorsement of the actions of beliefs of his political opponent. It is only what it is.

[Donziweasel]

Name someone who goes after everyone. He picks his fights carefully. I also think he picks his fights on what pisses him off personally. Don't forget, Cramer labels himself a Democrat.

[chappy]

Stewart's a clown.

He's basically using this economic crisis to further his political agenda and boost his ratings.

Just another Monday morning quarterback that started on MTV.

No solutions offered, just criticism.

The only good thing to come from Comedy Central was;

:kyle:
:stan:
&
:cartman:

[Donziweasel]

No solutions offered, just criticism.

He offered solutions, to start reporting responsibly. He even said at the end of the interview "you start reporting responsibly and I will go back to telling fart jokes"

[Ghost]

Agreed--and Stewart is not completely lopsided. I simply think he leans further than he should. Also, he's still in a period of heavy cognitive dissonance, given his party just won. I think winners' new-penny-shine will wear off for Stewart, and I fully expect him to become more critical of the folks in power with every passing day.

I think my posts above may be less clear than I'd hoped on how much I appreciate what Stewart does, since I was focusing only on explaining the things that temper my enthusiasm for his work. Colbert is hopelessly one-sided, but Stewart is very good--good enough that I want even better from him.

For reference: http://www.donzi.net/forums/showthread.php?p=465095&highlight=limbaugh#post465095 (http://www.donzi.net/forums/showthread.php?p=465095&highlight=limbaugh#post465095)

Politics also lures one into an awful logical trap: the more "like-minded" others you can get on a team, the less like-minded they actually are. And then most people start overlooking the sins of their teammates. This is a fundamental reason why I think small-government is the only right government. The larger it grows, the more it departs from the core functions that justify its existence, and the more it becomes a machine where people can fight to take from each other. Keeping government down to a small budget and limited jurisdiction takes most of this unstoppable temptation to steal by law off of the table. No one will pay such big money for influence when the fruits of influence-peddling are relatively meager.

EDIT: If Stewart wants to be all he can be, I think he needs to take his game up a notch by distancing himself further from the team, and by calling more of his teammates on the carpet. And, I think he will. As time goes on, his sense of right and wrong will start to overcome the compromises if conscience he's made through the recent Presidential election cycle.

[chappy]

He offered solutions, to start reporting responsibly. He even said at the end of the interview "you start reporting responsibly and I will go back to telling fart jokes"

That's not a solution.:rlol: That's a line from a comedian that is a huge supporter of our President. Think about it, if he wants responsible reporting, he would be taking on MSNBC, NBC, Fox News, CNN, the whole industry........

Ya think he'd have the guts to have O'Reilly or Dobbs on that show?

Remember, he only went after Cramer and CNBC after they spoke out with some criticism of our current administration.

Everybody is blaming everybody for everything. Stewart the coward is just making money off of it.

Oh yeah, Stewart is a clown.:biggrin.:

[Ghost]

Remember, he only went after Cramer and CNBC after they spoke out with some criticism of our current administration...

This (I thnk you're referring to the Santelli mini-revolt, no?) was a great example of what I mean. Stewart said he thought it was hypocritical of Santelli because of MSNBC's support for the Wall St people who leveraged bad debt to the hilt.

Logical fallacy: when multiple people are to blame, pointing out the guilt of one does not exonerate the others. I think Stewart botched this. Santelli was dead bang on with what he said, and I think Stewart has enough mentally invested in Obama that he could not face up to the truth in Santelli's words. And anyone who is criticizing the hypocrisy in another is fair game for evaluation of hypocrisy himself.

Another logical fallacy: false dichotomy. It is this OR it is that. Sometimes things work that way, but I think in this thread we're maybe getting lost in generalizations to an extent. Some stuff Stewart does is great. Some is good. Some is fair. Some is weak. Some is lousy. But what can you say about Stewart in general? I feel like calling him just a clown is selling him short by a lot, ignoring what he does well. And I'm not ready for a man-crush either. (Yes, I overstated a bit to make my point, but you see what I mean. :) ) I think a lot of good points have been made on both sides, and the answer is that Stewart is not just one thing. The answer is just more complex than that. (And I'm a guy who believes there are lots of right and wrong answers.)

[Donziweasel]

Ya think he'd have the guts to have O'Reilly or Dobbs on that show?
Rich,
He did have O'Rielly on the show. And hit him pretty hard. I love the cocoa and Mr.Snuggles.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUVuXgy3CVY

[Donziweasel]

Oh yeah, Stewart has also been on the O'Rielly Factor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5pK7sK0i4A&feature=PlayList&p=BEB3EB4B2D533513&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=4

[Ghost]

Yet Cramer seems a tad disturbed his fellow Dems are not supporting him...

Yep. This cracks me up. I find loyalty to be one of the most misunderstood and abused words. Loyalty to principles is very different from loyalty to people. Loyalty purely to people is the stuff of savages, pure and simple. Nothing but lies and convenient truths come from the mouths of such people, and their stories have to change.

True loyalty to principle, with unflinching respect for truth at its core, avoids the tangled web, and sets the mind free like nothing else.

[chappy]

This (I thnk you're referring to the Santelli mini-revolt, no?) was a great example of what I mean. Stewart said he thought it was hypocritical of Santelli because of MSNBC's support for the Wall St people who leveraged bad debt to the hilt.

Yes Mike, that's what I was referring to.

John, my apologies, I should have been more specific in earlier posts. I know O'Reilly was on the show in the past, but he was not hit as hard as Cramer was. No where near as hard. I don't think Bill was hit hard at all, maybe because he has a very large, loyal following, but that's just me. It's easier to kick Cramer and CNBC, because of the market conditions, and the Santelli flap.

When I call Stewart a clown, it's tongue in cheek. He's an intelligent guy. But his selective criticism of topics/people/issues is where the rub is.

He's a comedic stormtrooper for the left.

By his own admission, he "Gets paid to take cheap shots".

In artistic circles, he's considered a sell out.

[Donziweasel]

Alright Rich and Ghost, I guess we will just have to agree the Jon is a clown, but at times, has some insight, and at least is entertaining.

Now, to lighten the mood, this is one of my favorite Bill O'rielly clips of all time. I have seen it a bunch and never ceases to make me laugh when someone as dignified as Bill has a serious meltdown. Warning, strong langauge.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xjOQYtgsiw

[Ghost]

LOL, never seen that before.

[HOWARD O]

There was so much hub-bub about this interview that I had to watch it this morning. I went in thinking that it would be John Stewart making an ass of himself again......I really can't stand the guy. I was just floored, he really went after Kramer!

This guy Kramer being "disappointed" in Obama just kills me. The guy says, "hey, this isn't what I voted for!" Well, you freakin' IDIOT, what exactly did you THINK you were going to get? What a bozo and I am wondering if he even knows what an idiot he made of himself on that Stewart interview. Maybe he doesn't care, he's got his face all over the place right now and it seems that's all that matters to him. He's a 110% act and that is all, no scruples whatsoever.

Stewart impressed me this time, he seemed to be prepared and did his homework. Still don't like him though! :wink:

[chappy]

LOL at that video. :pimp:

[HOWARD O]

Yep, Bill was all bent out of shape!!! :biggrin.::biggrin.:

[Donzi Vol]

Stewart only attacked CNBC after they started to take shots at Obama.

That's fact.

Stewart is a clown. He never has to be held accountable for his viewpoints or opinions. When questioned, he backpedals and says he's a comedian.

I think Cramer is a clown too. Anyone that makes their financial decisions based on what he says deserves to lose their money.

But Stewart has a political agenda, make no mistake about it.

Why did he wait so long to call out CNBC?

Cramer is an easy target, why doesn't he go after Barney Frank or Christopher Dodd?

Could it be they haven't questioned the current administration?:biggrin.:

Pretty much my thoughts exactly. I've always disliked Stewart and The Daily Show because he is so convincing that he's credible that some people (like the typical voter) get their NEWS from HIM. Now that is a problem. And yes, when called on the carpet he just says, "oh don't listen to me...I'm a lowly comedian!"

Now I do have to say that he has had me rolling in the floor a time or two. The man is very entertaining when I don't want to jump through the TV.

[Marlin275]

I couldn't believe that Cramer
gave up and crawled in a corner fetal position
seems guilty as charged

[HOWARD O]

I've always disliked Stewart and The Daily Show because he is so convincing that he's credible that some people (like the typical voter) get their NEWS from HIM. Now that is a problem. And yes, when called on the carpet he just says, "oh don't listen to me...I'm a lowly comedian!"

BINGO!!! It's astounding where people get their "news" from and it's getting so much worse. MTV, Comedy Channel, etc.....

My grandfather always spoke of the "ignorant masses", now I REALLY know what he meant so long ago.

Watch out for Stewart. Who knows, maybe he'll run for President someday. Let's see, how about Senator Franken as his running mate? :eek:

[zelatore]

Watch out for Stewart. Who knows, maybe he'll run for President someday. Let's see, how about Senator Franken as his running mate? :eek:

Yeah, that would be pretty crazy! Hollywood-types running for office - oh, the humanity!

Seriously though, think about how many people have jumped from screen to politics-

Ronnie
Arnie
Clint
Some WWF guy
Franken
and probably a dozen others I can't think of off the top of my head.

Some people have even suggested Rush could run (I do think/hope they are joking)

I suspect you liked at least Regan from that list. So I don't think you can discount a man just because he had a background in television.

[Ghost]

So I finally got to see the rest of Stewart's Cramer interview.

This was a serious departure (pun intended) from his usual work. As much as I do believe Stewart fails to be properly critical of both parties, this was perhaps the best thing I have ever seen him do, and I think more than before I see why it drew the reactions it did. Wish he'd attack all both sides of the aisle like this all the time. I'd be a bigger fan.

And to expand on something we touched on earlier, folks like Stewart are great at being critics, but their whole approach doesn't fit when it tries to cheer for something. And when they don't fairly stick it to ALL the idiots, and instead promote one by overlooking the sins of the other, this is where their personal credibility goes out the door. In short, I see him as a formidable advocate tearing down the opposition, loved as one's own, feared as an opponent, but not desirable as a judge.

(BTW, I watched a little Colbert tonight, and his friendly interviews by feigning clumsy ultra-right-wing animosity for his guests still sicken me. Unbelievably anti-intellectual. A little learning is a dangerous thing, and the Colbert approach is the ultimate incarnation of shallow analysis with great pretension. I want to throw up.)

[HOWARD O]

I can't watch Colbert, period.

I am to the point whereby if an interviewer/journalist hasn't proven himself to be impartial, then stop the pretense of being impartial and just let it all hang out. I'd much rather see a liberal or conservative that is doing the questioning to be honest with us, at the very least.

I absolutely mean this on both sides too. There are ones that I absolutely cannot stand....Keith Olberman for example. But hey, at least with him I know what I'm getting and I have to give him a little bit of respect for that. He definitely leaves NO doubt which side of the fence he's on. :yes:

[HOWARD O]

Yeah, that would be pretty crazy! Hollywood-types running for office - oh, the humanity!
Seriously though, think about how many people have jumped from screen to politics-
Ronnie
Arnie
Clint
Some WWF guy
Franken
and probably a dozen others I can't think of off the top of my head.
Some people have even suggested Rush could run (I do think/hope they are joking)
I suspect you liked at least Regan from that list. So I don't think you can discount a man just because he had a background in television.

I've been suggesting Rush run for office for a long time. If you want to talk about a comparison in knowledge, put him against Franken. And you hope THEY were joking? Give me a break, I can't think of many people with more political knowledge than Rush Limbaugh. What's Franken got? Some piss poor skits from SNL?

Not to mention the politicians from your neck of the woods......beyond the pale, and they're not even acting! :rolleyes:

[roadtrip se]

I've been suggesting Rush run for office for a long time. If you want to talk about a comparison in knowledge, put him against Franken. And you hope THEY were joking? Give me a break, I can't think of many people with more political knowledge than Rush Limbaugh. What's Franken got? Some piss poor skits from SNL?
Not to mention the politicians from your neck of the woods......beyond the pale, and they're not even acting! :rolleyes:

even though Franken can. Now isn't that interesting?

Both are entertainers. Recognition.

Both know comedy, shock, and awe; including how to grab an audience and keep it. Communication.

While I think it is great that the occassional personality gets elected, who could forget Sonny Bono.. God rest his soul, and some actually pan out, think Reagan, Rush is a disaster for the Republican party without having to run for office.

He hasn't had a new idea in twenty years. Anybody with the least amount of a reformist agenda, including many members of the proclaimed conservative party of choice, realize that a platform built on the principles of Rush won't get elected.

Why do you think Obama's advisors are sqwaking about his BS? They know it is the best way to hold onto their majority by fractionalizing the direction of the Republican party.

And before somebody goes off and thinks this as some sort of endorsement for Al Franken, please read what I said again. I couldn't stand his
smug approach when he had a real day job. Now Rush, he is hilarious.

[Ghost]

Rush would not be my choice for office. I think his principles are far better than those of most of the Democratic Party, but in the battle between our Founding Principles and Socialism, I think Rush sided with Republicans who were constantly selling out and cutting bad deals for far too long. Now, I don't necessarily think he was happy with the Repblicans as he did this, but I think his judgement was poor about when to compromise principles to push one party that was failing to live up to those principles. EDIT: Judgement call, but I calls it like I sees it. Also, I do not have confidence that Rush, given power, would not push some of the right's social agenda that I think it is not government's place to push. Someone pushing pure small government, based strictly on the Constitution, can, I think, give comfort to people foolishly focused on flag-burning and other distraction issues. This frees them up to focus properly on the real issues: controlling government, rolling back redistribution of wealth programs that are bankrupting us, guaranteeing individual liberty, etc.

But more important for anyone who would differ with my opinion on that, I think Rush suffers from a problem similar to Hillary: his negatives are so stout and are a fixed near-50% of the population. Totally unchangeable. Say the word 'Rush' or the word 'Hillary' and half the country wretches reflexively. Honestly, I think this played directly into the Obama Presidency in the Democratic primary.

(As an aside--what was the story on Sonny Bono? I remember seeing him speak a little, several times, and I liked what he had to say. Of course, I saw an interview with Franken too, who you'd have never known was the Al Franken of old if you didn't know already.)

[roadtrip se]

Jill and I watched a Sonny and Cher show on the Roku a few nights ago and it was awful. All they did was snipe at each other and he certainly couldn't sing. Can't understand why they broke up, I mean really.

As a politician, Sonny was a conservative. First winning election as Mayor of Palm Springs when he couldn't get anything done with the previous Mayor's office as the owner of a restraunt. Losing out on the Republican nomination in a Senate run. And then onto the House, where he died in office in that skiing hotdog accident. Just think, had he lived, Sonny Bono could have been President!

Wasn't Clint Eastwood another as the Mayor of Carmel? I wonder if he ever used "Make My Day" as a way to move a few things happen while in office?

[zelatore]

Wasn't Clint Eastwood another as the Mayor of Carmel? I wonder if he ever used "Make My Day" as a way to move a few things happen while in office?

Yup. That was the 'Clint' in my list of celebrities above.

Of course, Carmel isn't exactly the real world. It's a very exclusive, very small little town just south of Monterey. He had (still has?) a restaurant/bar there.

[Ghost]

Wasn't Clint Eastwood another as the Mayor of Carmel? I wonder if he ever used "Make My Day" as a way to move a few things happen while in office?

Yes, I believe so. Coupled with the fact that he could golf pretty well, and his being a celebrity, always made it confusing to me why (in particular) they were talking to him at the Pebble Beach tournament.

As to your 2nd question, watching "Gran Torino" suggests if he didn't, he might have wanted to at times.

[Marlin275]

I can't watch Colbert, period.

I agree!
Colbert is Irish and has to pretend the French pronunciation of his name.
What is that about?
Unwatchable!