jon stewart killed cramer. did anyone watch?

[sealybobo]

The tough question cnbc asked, "is it fun being a millionaire".

 

[Ravi]

The tough question cnbc asked, "is it fun being a millionaire".

I liked the one about CNBC in general better. I think Stewart made some great points. I also think that in the past couple of decades we have made Wall Street "wizards" into some kind of gods to be worshiped...along with money, always money and greed and selfishness.

And I absolutely love Jon Stewart.

But his Cramer bit...Cramer came across as sincere. Though the fact that he wasn't suspicious of CEOs puffing up their company is kind of odd. I've never watched his show but after the original beat down on CNBC in general it took a lot of guts for Cramer to be on the Daily Show. It would be interesting to see if Cramer takes his reporting more seriously after this and dispenses with the hero worship...

 

[WillowTree]

I'd be very impressed if Stewart called Dobbs, Fwank, and Maxine in and asked them why they kept saying FM and FM were sound investments,, right up til they weren't..

 

[Diuretic]

I thought Cramer did fine.

Stewart made some implications which were flat out wrong. He implied that CNBC knew what was going on and were complicit in fraud and/or abbetting in the looting of people's savings. He may have been right for taking CNBC to task for being anything other than an entertainment network, but the simple fact is that most everyone on Wall Street has been hurt by the financial crisis, some very badly. I understand the frustration, but to imply that the network is somehow in cahoots with rich people who fleece everyone else is simply wrong.

I can't link this so you'll have to take me at my word I'm afraid.

I was listening to radio here this morning (it's a news channel that features info from all over the world and I think this morning's was the BBC World Service). There was an interview with a bloke who is the chief forensic type honcho for one of the big accounting firms, damned if I can remember which one though, sorry that's something that would be very useful. Anyway, he sounded to me like he had a Kiwi accent. He was saying that the GFC, the GCC or whatever we call it this week, was revealing so much financial crime by those running corporations that the regulators and investigators couldn't keep up. That is a big worry.

 

[PoliticalChic]

did anyone watch the daily show? cramer got killed

I read this whole thread, and am I surprised that everyone missed the real point!

Yes, he ripped Kramer, wow!

Yes, Kramer deserved every bit of it.

But the reason! The reason he did it to Kramer?

Did you see this politico column? The new left-wing conspiracy - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com
Put two and two together.

The left got Kramer because he turned on Obama!!!!
He ripped the Obama Economic Plan.

Read the tea leaves: its the left-wing conspiracy!

 

[Sarah G]

The tough question cnbc asked, "is it fun being a millionaire".

I liked the one about CNBC in general better. I think Stewart made some great points. I also think that in the past couple of decades we have made Wall Street "wizards" into some kind of gods to be worshiped...along with money, always money and greed and selfishness.

And I absolutely love Jon Stewart.

But his Cramer bit...Cramer came across as sincere. Though the fact that he wasn't suspicious of CEOs puffing up their company is kind of odd. I've never watched his show but after the original beat down on CNBC in general it took a lot of guts for Cramer to be on the Daily Show. It would be interesting to see if Cramer takes his reporting more seriously after this and dispenses with the hero worship...

I don't think Cramer saw this thrashing coming. I didn't and I've seen Stewart in attack mode before:

On 15 October 2004, Stewart appeared on CNN's Crossfire with hosts Paul Begala "from the left" and Tucker Carlson "from the right". Instead of cracking a few jokes and promoting his book, Stewart asked Begala and Carlson why they waste half an hour daily yelling at each other and encouraging their guests to yell, when they could be discussing the news.

STEWART: You're doing theater, when you should be doing debate. ... It's not honest. What you do is not honest. What you do is partisan hackery. ... You have a responsibility to the public discourse, and you fail miserably.
CARLSON: You need to get a job at a journalism school, I think.

STEWART: You need to go to one. ... I'm here to confront you, because we need help from the media and they're hurting us. ... I watch your show every day. And it kills me. It's so -- oh, it's so painful to watch, because we need what you do. This is such a great opportunity you have here to actually get politicians off of their marketing and strategy.

CARLSON: Is this really Jon Stewart? What is this, anyway?

STEWART: Yes, it's someone who watches your show and cannot take it anymore.

CARLSON: What's it like to have dinner with you? It must be excruciating. Do you like lecture people like this or do you come over to their house and sit and lecture them [that] they're not doing the right thing, that they're missing their opportunities, evading their responsibilities?

STEWART: If I think they are.

Several weeks later, in announcing that Carlson's services would no longer be needed, CNN president Jonathan Klein said, "I agree wholeheartedly with Jon Stewart's overall premise". He promised that CNN would be moving away from what he called "head-butting debate shows".

Jon Stewart

Cramer started out and finished with his usual humble and pleasant persona but he got hammered.

 

[WillowTree]

did anyone watch the daily show? cramer got killed

I read this whole thread, and am I surprised that everyone missed the real point!

Yes, he ripped Kramer, wow!

Yes, Kramer deserved every bit of it.

But the reason! The reason he did it to Kramer?

Did you see this politico column? The new left-wing conspiracy - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com
Put two and two together.

The left got Kramer because he turned on Obama!!!!
He ripped the Obama Economic Plan.

Read the tea leaves: its the left-wing conspiracy!

which is exactly why I said I would have been impressed had Stewart taken on Dodd, Fwank, and Waters..

 

[Pyrite]

I, frankly, was impressed that Cramer had the balls to step up for CNBC. And I think, compared to what he did to crossfire, Stewart was light on him. But I think Cramer knew what to expect, and wasn't terribly surprised. He was, in several ways, negligent, and not carrying out the full extent of his duty to the American people. He knew he had to face the music for that before he could put it behind him and move on.

Stewart left him intact at the end of this interview, when I think he probably could have destroyed him.

 

[Sarah G]

I, frankly, was impressed that Cramer had the balls to step up for CNBC. And I think, compared to what he did to crossfire, Stewart was light on him. But I think Cramer knew what to expect, and wasn't terribly surprised. He was, in several ways, negligent, and not carrying out the full extent of his duty to the American people. He knew he had to face the music for that before he could put it behind him and move on.

Stewart left him intact at the end of this interview, when I think he probably could have destroyed him.

I'm not so sure Stewart left him intact. People who I didn't even know would be interested were talking about it yesterday and planned to watch last night.

Cramer followed through with his plan to go ahead and let Jon rip him to shreds while he stayed calm but showing all of those clips kind of hurt him. It was hard to watch.

Now Cramer has to find a way to react on his show, he said he might try working without the bells and whistles. We'll see.

 

[Pyrite]

I think at the very least the stakes have been raised for Cramer. I don't think he can just keep doing what he's been doing. I think people watching his show will expect him to go after people more. If he can live up to that, he might actually come out of this stronger than before.

 

[Article 15]

I, frankly, was impressed that Cramer had the balls to step up for CNBC. And I think, compared to what he did to crossfire, Stewart was light on him. But I think Cramer knew what to expect, and wasn't terribly surprised. He was, in several ways, negligent, and not carrying out the full extent of his duty to the American people. He knew he had to face the music for that before he could put it behind him and move on.

Stewart left him intact at the end of this interview, when I think he probably could have destroyed him.

I'm not so sure Stewart left him intact. People who I didn't even know would be interested were talking about it yesterday and planned to watch last night.

Cramer followed through with his plan to go ahead and let Jon rip him to shreds while he stayed calm but showing all of those clips kind of hurt him. It was hard to watch.

Now Cramer has to find a way to react on his show, he said he might try working without the bells and whistles. We'll see.

Cramer was very receptive to Jon's criticism and that was his saving grace. The Crossfire boys did what they were programmed to do when Jon came on, ATTACK! ATTACK! ATTACK! ... and Jon destroyed their show.

Jon's message to Cramer and CNBC was pretty clear, "just do your fucking job right."

 

[strollingbones]

carlson who?

 

[editec]

I thought Cramer did fine.

Stewart made some implications which were flat out wrong. He implied that CNBC knew what was going on and were complicit in fraud and/or abbetting in the looting of people's savings. He may have been right for taking CNBC to task for being anything other than an entertainment network, but the simple fact is that most everyone on Wall Street has been hurt by the financial crisis, some very badly. I understand the frustration, but to imply that the network is somehow in cahoots with rich people who fleece everyone else is simply wrong.

to be fair, stewart also said "this song isn't about [cramer]" but about the financial media in general. cramer was a gentleman as was stewart and is, unfortunately for him, just the face of the issue for now.

But Stewart also showed tapes of cramer telling people at a financial seminar that he KNEW what wall street was doing in terms of manipulation of hedgefunds, etc. so i don't think he was being unfair at all. cramer sat there trying to play stupid and, how did stewart put it? oh yeah... "like a doe eyed innocent"... and jon just showed not that cramer was criminal, but that in not talking about the "other" wall street, the financial news media wasn't doing its job. Cramer went so far as to admit that they didn't because they really didn't think the ride was going to end.

does that make them complicit?

I understand that completely. But there are a couple of points.

First, Cramer was a hedge fund manager, where you are expected to perform NOW. There is tremendous pressure (and reward) in that business. Thus, many hedge funds game the system.

There is tremendous pressure on streetlevel crack-dealers to make money, too.

They're still part of a criminal enterprize.

What Cramer did in that clip was to pull the veil back and show a murky underworld in the market. For that, I think he did an enormous service because that crap goes on.

Totally agree. I LIKE Cramer, to be honest. Of course he's got a show to put on. He has NO CHOICE but to be a cheerleader for playing the market.

But to the extent that he has willingly admitted that the game is a fix?

He deserves our thanks.

However, what Stewart argues is that Cramer's clip represents the market, that this is how insiders screw the public through the market en mass. That's incorrect. Most insiders are not doing that

Stewart did not argue that. He acknowledged that MOST player on the market ALSO got screwed.

Most insiders have been hurt, some badly so, over the past six months. There is a tremendous amount of pain on Wall Street. Thousands of hedge funds are being shut or will be shut soon. Fortunes have been wiped out. People have killed themselves.

But those who got screwed were NOT insiders. They were obvious outside the conspiracies.

I am not a fan of Cramer, and I am accutely aware of the foibles of CNBC.

And the criticisms of Stewart that CNBC is holding itself as a beacon to guide you through this crisis is fair.

Agreed.

However, the forces that have taken down the financial community are far beyond anything anyone on Wall Street could possibly precipitate.

True...if you don't read your history.

If you read your history, then you KNOW that what is happening NOW, has happened in the past, and will happen again.

This is the nature of humankind.

And if we do not take these motherfuckers out and shoot them in the public square, then we REWARD the BASTARDS.

Which is EXACTLY what we are seeing done right now with out BANKERS.

People cannot understand why the Islanmic world does NOT want to become a satillite of the WESTERN world?

Well the fact that the most powerful playing in our universe, periodically FLEECE us ALL, might have something to do with that, don't you think?

We are not a capitalist society.

We are not a democratic society.

We are a kakatocracy maquerading as a democratic republic.

Government is but a handmaiden to this cabal of crooks, folks.

 

[strollingbones]

if nothng else, stewart showed the refusal of the "real" news reporters to do their jobs....to "vet" the news

 

[Freemason]

Cramer v. Stewart by Mark Hemingway on National Review Online

Cramer v. Stewart
Memo to the Daily Show host: You’re a comedian!

Interesting follow up.

 

[Sarah G]

Cramer v. Stewart by Mark Hemingway on National Review Online

Cramer v. Stewart
Memo to the Daily Show host: You’re a comedian!

Interesting follow up.

If he is only a comedian, why continue to engage him like CNBC has? They clearly thought they could pound him into the ground on these issues. CNBC should lick their wounds and try to do a better job in the area of financial advice, which is their claim to fame.

In a previous post, I gave the example of Stewart on Crossfire ripping into Tucker Carlson with the same venom so he has gone to the issues as he has had the issues come to him. He is a comedian but he is also an award winning, hard hitting political writer.

I've seen him interview hard-ass GOP leaders and he has done very well. James Baker is one who stands out. Baker even cracked a smile once or twice.

I don't watch everyday but I do when I see he is going to have interesting guests.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Cramer v. Stewart by Mark Hemingway on National Review Online

Cramer v. Stewart
Memo to the Daily Show host: You’re a comedian!

Interesting follow up.

Nice job. I'm glad that you were able to pin the tail on the donkey, and show the connection to Cramer's attack on Obama's economic policies:

"Instead, Jon Stewart has most recently been snatching headlines by engaging in a petty feud with CNBC host Jim Cramer, in a lame attempt to defend the Obama administration’s economic policies. Sure enough, a guy who’s always screaming “BOO-YAH!” and announcing stock picks like they were bingo numbers seems a fairly safe target for a comedy show."

They want to make sure that no one else has the gall to veer from the party line.

 

[editec]

Apparently you folks complaining that Stewart is comedian (and therefore can be dismssed) don't understand why courts felt it useful to have court jesters.

If you merely want to complain about somebdy or something, complain about it. You will be ignored because the powerful don't give a rat's ass what you think

But if you truly want to eviserate your opposition, use humor on them.

There is nothing the powerful hate more than when people laugh at them and their excesses.

Jon Stewart is the most influential humorous political commentator of our age.

He doesn't have the same loyal following of dittoheads as Rush, but his persuasive power to lampoon those in power is far greater than Limboughs because you don't have to agree with him, to see the humor (and truth usually) of his mockery of the powerful.

There is simply no better way to unmask the absurdities of the powerful than by doing so with humor.

You can often convey a complex truth more effectively by making a joke about it than by simply explaining it.

Jestors are there to tell the powerful what they do NOT want to hear, and that they HOPE nobody else notices.

Modern political humorists often serve those of us who are not easily buffalo'd into GROUPT THINK, by showing us that we are not the only ones who see through the tissue of lies and pompousity that our governments and the partisans which support them, them are feeding us.

 

[PoliticalChic]

But if you truly want to eviserate your opposition, use humor on them.

There is nothing the powerful hate more than when people laugh at them and their excesses.

Jon Stewart is the most influential humorous political commentator of our age.

At times perceptive, I'm wondering how you miss the difference between the kind of humorous banter that Stewart often uses, especially against political opposites, and you use the appropriate term, 'eviserating' withering attack that we witnessed here.

I felt that the video-enhanced attack by Stewart was more appropriate to be found in a courtroom than a comedy set.

Why?

And why did Cramer show up to get this beating? Because, being a loyal Democrat and Obama-supporter up until recently, he felt that the other good-ol'-boy would spank him lightly.

Surprise. The left is unforgiving. Air America. MSNBC. Daily Kos. Huffington Post. Add Jon Stewart to the list.

 

[random3434]

Apparently you folks complaining that Stewart is comedian (and therefore can be dismssed) don't understand why courts felt it useful to have court jesters.

If you merely want to complain about somebdy or something, complain about it. You will be ignored because the powerful don't give a rat's ass what you think

But if you truly want to eviserate your opposition, use humor on them.

There is nothing the powerful hate more than when people laugh at them and their excesses.

Jon Stewart is the most influential humorous political commentator of our age.

He doesn't have the same loyal following of dittoheads as Rush, but his persuasive power to lampoon those in power is far greater than Limboughs because you don't have to agree with him, to see the humor (and truth usually) of his mockery of the powerful.

There is simply no better way to unmask the absurdities of the powerful than by doing so with humor.

You can often convey a complex truth more effectively by making a joke about it than by simply explaining it.

Jestors are there to tell the powerful what they do NOT want to hear, and that they HOPE nobody else notices.

Modern political humorists often serve those of us who are not easily buffalo'd into GROUPT THINK, by showing us that we are not the only ones who see through the tissue of lies and pompousity that our governments and the partisans which support them, them are feeding us.

I think some people want to shoot the messenger (Stewart) because he is considered a "lib"

If Cramer had been called out by someone on the "right" then nobody would be howling like they are.

Humor and Politics, yes, a great combination.