Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
Jim Cramer On "Daily Show": Jon Stewart Hits Hard JAKE COYLE
NEW YORK — Jon Stewart hammered Jim Cramer and his network, CNBC, in their anticipated face-off on "The Daily Show," repeatedly chastising the "Mad Money" host for putting entertainment above journalism.
"I understand that you want to make finance entertaining, but it's not a ... game," Stewart told Cramer, adding in an expletive during the show's Thursday taping. The episode was scheduled to air at 11 p.m. EDT on Comedy Central.
It was perhaps the hardest lashing Stewart has given to a TV commentator since 2004 when he called Tucker Carlson and his then co-host Paul Begala "partisan hacks" on CNN's "Crossfire," the since canceled political commentary program.
The program opened in mock hype of the confrontation, which caught headlines through the week as each snipped at the other over the air. The show announced it as "the weeklong feud of the century."
In his opening, Stewart announced that it was "go time." He played a video clip of Cramer's Thursday guest appearance on "The Martha Stewart Show" in which Cramer beat a mound of dough, pretending it was Stewart.
Said Stewart: "Mr. Cramer, don't you destroy enough dough on your own show?"
Once Cramer came out for the interview, Stewart wondered: "How the hell did we get here?"
Cramer, his sleeves characteristically rolled up, said he was a "fan of the show." Story continues below
But the humorous tone _ at least for Stewart _ changed as the interview continued.
Stewart repeatedly said Cramer wasn't his target, but aired clip after clip of the CNBC pundit.
"Roll 210!" announced Stewart, like a prosecutor. "Roll 212!"
Most were from a 2006 interview not meant for TV in which Cramer spoke openly about the duplicity of the market.
"I can't reconcile the brilliance and knowledge that you have of the intricacies of the market with the crazy ... I see you do every night," said the comedian.
Stewart said he and Cramer are both snake-oil salesman, only "The Daily Show" is labeled as such. He claimed CNBC shirked its journalistic duty by believing corporate lies, rather than being an investigative "powerful tool of illumination." And he alleged CNBC was ultimately in bed with the businesses it covered _ that regular people's stocks and 401Ks were "capitalizing on your adventure."
For his part, Cramer disagreed with Stewart on a few points, but mostly acknowledged that he could have done a better job foreseeing the economic collapse: "We all should have seen it more."
Cramer said CNBC was "fair game" to the criticism and acknowledged the network was perhaps overeager to believe the information it was fed from corporations.
"I, too, like you, want to have a successful show," said Cramer, defending his methods on "Mad Money." He later added: "Should we have been constantly pointing out the mistakes that were made? Absolutely. I truly wish we had done more."
Cramer insisted he was devoted to revealing corporate "shenanigans," to which Stewart retorted: "It's easy to get on this after the fact."
At one point, Cramer sounded the reformed sinner, responding to Stewart's plea for more levelheaded, honest commentary: "How about I try that?" said Cramer. "I'll do that."
By the end, the two-segment interview went far beyond its allotted time. Comedy Central said the on-air version would be cut by about eight minutes, though the entire interview would be available unedited on ComedyCentral.com on Friday.
I've been following this all week. Don't have cable so I couldn't watch it. I'll wait till they post the whole episode online. Can't wait to see John Stewart tear him a new one.
ive been following this whole thing from the start. i love jon's passion for this. yeah he makes jokes during all these rants, but the point he makes is incredibly valid.
this whole thing could have been avoided had CNBC been more worried about the general publics financial well-being rather than providing a generic media outlet which provides very little essential information in the grand scheme of things.
that said i think/hop cramer got the message and i hope he was sincere in his recognition of his own and his networks faults, and he chooses to actively assert himself in deliberately changing the way he and others deliver what they do know.
kudos to jon stewart for calling out the network and doing so in a way that the average person can understand how much we are all continually duped by putting our faith of economic/political/health/etc... knowledge in the hands of ANYONE other than ourselves.
Post by bluntobject on Mar 13, 2009 14:01:21 GMT -5
To be fair to Cramer, he walked right into a den of wolves. Stewart has an audience that is conditioned to applaud whenever he makes a point, as well as people sitting and waiting to play incriminating video clips. I'm not saying Stewart didn't raise good points, but I don't think it was a fair fight either.
Kudos to Cramer for at least having the stones to agree to something like that. I got the impression that Cramer came in expecting to be treated like some of the other guests Stewart has had on that he disagrees with (Tony Blair, any of the Bush press secretaries), getting questioned but still respected. Instead Stewart came out swinging like a mad man after the first 5 seconds, and Cramer was basically a deer in headlights for the entire interview.
There are two other things I didn't like. I didn't like the point at which they cut the interview, though I can understand that it's not totally under their control. It was just frustrating to see Stewart make one of his most insulting points, and then see no response.
Secondly, I didn't like the "at least we tell people we're snake-oil salesmen" comment. Stewart goes back and forth between trying to be considered a serious political pundit and telling people he's just a comedian, and he can't have it both ways. Either he's an entertainer and needs to be considered as such, or he's a legitimate source of political news and needs to follow a lot of the rules he calls news pundits out on. I'd personally rather him stop hiding behind the fact that he's on comedy central, because I do think he has a lot of really good insights and he's not afraid to make an interview extremely awkward with very difficult questions, which usually leads to really great insights and discussion.
All of this being said, I still love the daily show. I like that they haven't backed off Obama and still question him at times instead of always making excuses for him. I think they do try harder than a lot of political programs at trying to stay as moderate as they can while still acknowledging that they're left-leaning (maybe a little more than 'leaning').
And at the end of the day, I'll happily take the fake-news show that is able to make thought-provoking insights over the real-news show that refuses to acknowledge any bias or lack of journalistic integrity.
Post by candyflippedaround on Mar 13, 2009 17:53:03 GMT -5
before i finished reading i read the name Tucker Carlson. someone shoot him and steal his bowtie. pretty please with sugar and a cherry on top.
also, ive never been so disgusted with anything as i have been with the way "America" talks about and looks at itself lf. We are quacking terrible.
edit: roll down your sleeves mr. TV Guy. the only time i wear a dress shirt with a tie and have my sleeves rolled up is when im bussing tables. what are you doing that you are gonna get your cuffs so quacking dirty?
reedit: in summation, enjoy literally burning your money.
Looks like all the traffic has crashed the Full Episodes tab on the Daily Show website or something. I was able to watch it in the 3 parts on the main page though.
It's surprising and wonderful how a "fake" news show like the Daily Show can actually get down to the nitty gritty unlike how the "real" news organizations rarely do. John Stewart FTW!!!
Instead of dirt and poison, we have rather chosen to fill our hives with honey and wax; thus furnishing mankind with the two noblest of things, which are sweetness and light.
2/5- Papadosio 3/3- MUSE 3/12- John Mayer 3/19- The Werks 3/31- Passion Pit 4/18- Ben Folds 4/20- Against Me! 6/10- Bonnaroo 6/30- Eric Clapton and Roger Daltrey
I didn't see it. I don't watch the Daily Show. But:
"I can't reconcile the brilliance and knowledge that you have of the intricacies of the market with the crazy ... I see you do every night," said the comedian.
Stewart said he and Cramer are both snake-oil salesman, only "The Daily Show" is labeled as such. He claimed CNBC shirked its journalistic duty by believing corporate lies, rather than being an investigative "powerful tool of illumination."
But this is hypocritical. He is attacking Cramer for his show be too zany and not real news. He admits that his own show does the samet thing, but they admit they're not a serious news show. Then he rips the guy like he's barbara walters or something.
Say what you want to about Cramer, but the guy's a financial genius and he donates 100s of millions of dollars to charity.
I didn't see it. I don't watch the Daily Show. But:
"I can't reconcile the brilliance and knowledge that you have of the intricacies of the market with the crazy ... I see you do every night," said the comedian.
Stewart said he and Cramer are both snake-oil salesman, only "The Daily Show" is labeled as such. He claimed CNBC shirked its journalistic duty by believing corporate lies, rather than being an investigative "powerful tool of illumination."
But this is hypocritical. He is attacking Cramer for his show be too zany and not real news. He admits that his own show does the samet thing, but they admit they're not a serious news show. Then he rips the guy like he's barbara walters or something.
Say what you want to about Cramer, but the guy's a financial genius and he donates 100s of millions of dollars to charity.
Cra
He ripped on Cramer so hard about this fact because Stewart only puts a comical slant on the news. mer isn't necessarily making his show comical, but being a cheerleader for the stock market as Stewart said himself.
And I completely agree. He was stating that Cramer and the guys at CNBC know so much about the market, do so many interviews etc that they have to know they are being lied to, they have to know that something has to give after a while and they didn't even attempt to warn viewers without as intricate knowledge as they had. However, I have a sneaky suspicion that this may have arisen because Stewart, or people close to him lost a good bit of money and it irked him.
I didn't see it. I don't watch the Daily Show. But:
But this is hypocritical. He is attacking Cramer for his show be too zany and not real news. He admits that his own show does the samet thing, but they admit they're not a serious news show. Then he rips the guy like he's barbara walters or something.
Say what you want to about Cramer, but the guy's a financial genius and he donates 100s of millions of dollars to charity.
Cra
He ripped on Cramer so hard about this fact because Stewart only puts a comical slant on the news. mer isn't necessarily making his show comical, but being a cheerleader for the stock market as Stewart said himself.
And I completely agree. He was stating that Cramer and the guys at CNBC know so much about the market, do so many interviews etc that they have to know they are being lied to, they have to know that something has to give after a while and they didn't even attempt to warn viewers without as intricate knowledge as they had. However, I have a sneaky suspicion that this may have arisen because Stewart, or people close to him lost a good bit of money and it irked him.
Nobody or very few foresaw what was going to happen. People found a loophole in the SEC regulations, that allowed them to leverage money against mortgages. Basically big investment/real estate companies banks have billions of dollars of mortgages that are owed to them (a debt) by home-owners. This is an asset for the bank.
They would use that an use it to issue $100 million worth of bonds (people collectively would buy a small piece of the$100 million asset in exchange for a future payment +interest. The thing is, the bank doesn't have that cash on hand. It's just in an IOU account. This turned out to be very profitable, because it allowed them to use an asset that was already laying around and use to make cash (the money people paid them for bonds). So, people started getting greedy, banks lowered the regulations to give out mortgages, because they were making money selling the debt, the economy was doing good.
This led to a very unstable situation, because all these bonds are issued are expected to have a very high level of safety, and did if the mortgages issued were reasonable. The company's that evaluate bond ratings for companies (Moody's, Standard & Poor's) are really amonth most to blame. Their job is to investigagte these companies and determine the banks ability to pay all its debts. All the banks with large amounts of these of these risky mortgage backed bonds all had either AAA orAA ratings, the top 2 you can get.
They are very reputable companies and people take them at their word. Anyone investing in bonds with A or higher ratings, is assuming that the safety of the investment is extremely high. These bonds had false high ratings and people got screwed.
To say Jim Cramer knew he was being lied to is irresponsible. He has nothing to gain. All the money he has invested in the markets is in a charitable trust (charity). It's illegal for him to talk about securities on TV that he owns. He made billions in the 90's running the biggest hedge fun in the world (making him the most influential/respected broker of the time). He made others 100's of billions. He does his show to help me. I've read his book. He wants to help regular people make money in the markets like he did. To drag him on and scapegoat him for the entire mess is stupid.
Does it suck alot of people lost alot of money? Ya, it does. Could it have been prevented? Probably but only by people directly involved in the issuing of morgages and the ratings companies. Not by an analyst as far as removed as Cramer. On paper (publice financial statements) all those companies looked financially sound.
^^^To be fair John made it clear that this wasn't just about Cramer. It was about all of CNBC. Cramer just became the face of it. It is true that no one could have seen this coming in the size and scope that it did, BUT, it's CNBC's job to figure out who's lying and who's telling the truth and not just take the corrupt CEO's word for it when they say that everything's fine.
^^^To be fair John made it clear that this wasn't just about Cramer. It was about all of CNBC. Cramer just became the face of it. It is true that no one could have seen this coming in the size and scope that it did, BUT, it's CNBC's job to figure out who's lying and who's telling the truth and not just take the corrupt CEO's word for it when they say that everything's fine.
^If CNBC knew this was going to happe, they would have taken all their money out of the market and all thier bank accounts would be 40% richer. They're a television station. You can't blame them for the market. There are professional financial advisors (all of them) lost lots of money. That's their job. It's like blaming the weatherman for Hurricane Katrina. By the time the warning signs were there, it was way too late.
To say Jim Cramer knew he was being lied to is irresponsible. He has nothing to gain. All the money he has invested in the markets is in a charitable trust (charity). It's illegal for him to talk about securities on TV that he owns. He made billions in the 90's running the biggest hedge fun in the world (making him the most influential/respected broker of the time). He made others 100's of billions. He does his show to help me. I've read his book. He wants to help regular people make money in the markets like he did. To drag him on and scapegoat him for the entire mess is stupid.
Does it suck alot of people lost alot of money? Ya, it does. Could it have been prevented? Probably but only by people directly involved in the issuing of morgages and the ratings companies. Not by an analyst as far as removed as Cramer. On paper (publice financial statements) all those companies looked financially sound.
It's really easy to kick a guy while he's down.
From what I recall of that interview, even Stewart said it wasn't about Cramer, he just happened to become the face of this. Cramer has a goofy show (I've seen it on several occasions) about stock picks and offers some insights into companies... he isn't a reporter.
I think the issue is that a business news network wasn't doing any reporting. they were just relaying whatever information was passed to them. i think the criticism is very 20/20 in hindsight - but the point of "imagine the reputation you could have with just a little more effort" seems valid to me.
but then again, im pretty much disgusted with the news and really dont watch it at all. nothing but fear mongering and bleeding headlines presented by smug douchebags that really do not appeal to me.
^^^To be fair John made it clear that this wasn't just about Cramer. It was about all of CNBC. Cramer just became the face of it. It is true that no one could have seen this coming in the size and scope that it did, BUT, it's CNBC's job to figure out who's lying and who's telling the truth and not just take the corrupt CEO's word for it when they say that everything's fine.
^If CNBC knew this was going to happe, they would have taken all their money out of the market and all thier bank accounts would be 40% richer. They're a television station. You can't blame them for the market. There are professional financial advisors (all of them) lost lots of money. That's their job. It's like blaming the weatherman for Hurricane Katrina. By the time the warning signs were there, it was way too late.
I didn't say they knew it was going to happen, and no one is blaming CNBC for the crisis. John was just asking for a bit more oversight and investigative journalism on their part.
