Jon Stewart slaughters crazy finance guy Jim Cramer -- video

Discuss

106 Responses to “Jon Stewart slaughters crazy finance guy Jim Cramer -- video”

  1. noen says:

    Wow, concern trolls are concerned.

    “Where was Jon Stewart’s reporting…”

    Um, you do know that Stewart is a comedian and o not a journalist right? It isn’t his job to report or investigate anything. His job is to be funny.

    The problem is that the talking heads are not journalists either. Their job is not to report the news. Their job is to sell air time, they’re salesmen. In order to do so they are willing and eager to strap on the knee pads and get busy sucking off anyone in authority they can because that sells. People shouldn’t be surprised at what whores do. It’s just their job.

  2. Tensegrity says:

    @85 Yes, thank you for that sound advice, Pruette.

    I am going to go right out and negotiate new compensation contracts for the managers of the mutual funds that I put my IRA money in. I’ll let you know when they get back to me on that.

    Also, I will only fly on airplanes where I have scrutinized and approved the technical training curricula for all the airplane mechanics.

    Why must all these weak willed individuals cry for the nanny state to make sure that everything is running properly?

    But hedge fund managers who should cheat as much as possible! It’s not their problem if there’s not enough regulation to catch them.

    Oh wait…

  3. Teresa Nielsen Hayden / Community Manager says:

    I thought that was the most intelligent performance I’ve ever seen out of Jim Cramer. He knew he was in an indefensible position, and he didn’t try to pretend otherwise.

    He tactfully distanced himself from the traders who were booing mortgage bailouts by saying perhaps they came from a different socioeconomic level than his own — he doubted any of them had ever lived in their cars, as he had — and added that he knew that beleaguered mortgageholders were fighters who are just trying to hang on during hard times. That was beautifully done: concrete, first-person, positive, and likeable. If you thought about it, you could take it as having implied that the traders were being thoughtless, overprivileged louts; but he never said so.

    He dealt with the larger objections to his show in the same way, freely admitting that he’d made some bad calls and that he couldn’t predict the market. Stewart picked up his implication immediately, pointing out that CNBC nevertheless sells its lineup of shows as expert business and financial reporting. That relocated primary responsibility where it belonged: with CNBC, for selling a product they know they don’t deliver.

    Besides, arguing with a comedian gets you nowhere. It’s like carrying on a feud with a cartoonist.

    By the end of that interview, I felt for the first time that Jim Cramer was not an idiot.

  4. ben says:

    Heh, OK I confess, I don’t watch TV and I haven’t seen the clip. I was just trying to keep this from becoming a “OMG Stewart is the best journalist ever” lovefest. Ala Jobs’ keynote presentations.

    Though I do watch the Colbert Report online and I thought Colbert’s segment with Cramer was quite funny. Because, you know, its a comedy show and it takes that quite seriously.

    I just don’t see the worth in crucifying one guy when clearly all the blame does not fall on him. If this had been with, say Bernie Madoff, then I would approve.

  5. urshrew says:

    @NOEN
    “Wow, concern trolls are concerned.”

    Yeah, its like people think that the Daily Show is real news. Its called Fake News for a reason. Its a parody of ‘real news.’ The reason that it ever accidentally gets facts out is because the supposed real news doesn’t. What better way to parody real news then to report all the facts they leave out?

  6. ornith says:

    @31 The “court jester” comparison occured to me too. It was so obviously NOT comedy, and yet, who but a commedian is allowed to get away with it?

  7. Ceronomus says:

    Thank you BadKittyM, that is AWESOME.

    One thing that Cramer said, that is *VERY* true, is that we need to start sending people to jail. There were people who were bartenders one day, and trading in debt the next. These people were writing fraudulent mortgages left and right, knowing that the people would never have the ability to pay the mortgage, and also knowing that the bad mortgage would be off their books LONG BEFORE anything went south.

  8. Sekino says:

    I just watched the segment and I was actually shocked at how TAME it was. After reading some comments here, I was bracing for a blood bath.

    Jon Stewart did no ‘crucify’ Cramer. He even acknowledged and praised his talent. He basically pointed out that Cramer had dropped the ball while a lot of people were relying on him for critical opinions on the economy. Cramer was speechless because it was true and he had nothing to retort with. What was Stewart suppose to do, hold 10 min of dead silence while Cramer shrugged?

    Several times, Stewart maintained that his questioning and point of view were those of a layman trying to make sense of the situation and Cramer’s claims. Given that it is exactly my own position, it was refreshing to hear. There is so little accountability to be found anywhere. Yeah, Cramer isn’t the biggest bad guy out there, but he was still accountable for what he said (or did not say) and it was good to see it exposed.

    Most ‘journalists’ don’t debate or uncover anything these days. It is painfully clear that they don’t want to bite any hand that’s potentially feeding them.

    Pretty much the only people I can even stand to listen to (and somewhat respect) in the media are comedians. They might hide behind the funnyman act but they acknowledge things that are important and wrong. The ‘real’ journalist and politicians are too busy shoving issues under the carpet. I’m just sick of the bullshit.

  9. Marcel says:

    Couldn’t help but to think about an old saying we have in my country while watching this, which translates to:
    You better sit still while you’re being shaven.

  10. sswaan says:

    When Jon Stewart does this, it always makes me feel exhilarated, and then depressed that he is the only one (with a major audience) speaking truth to power and calling out these “journalists” on their nonsense.

  11. amuderick says:

    Perhaps this is a good time to recommend reading the first half of Chomsky’s “Manufacturing Consent” which describes how news organizations work, who sets the ‘agenda’ for national media, and the ways they can be corrupted against the public interest.

    News, especially television is a voracious consumer of content. If you don’t play nice with your sources, they will clam up and then you won’t have any content. Then you go out of business. The only way to survive is to be an indepedent that never makes money or to go along for the ride and get rich.

  12. Brainspore says:

    Seeing the unedited video today I can’t see how anyone could accuse Stewart of denying Cramer the opportunity to speak his piece. The simple fact is that he didn’t have anything more to say in defense of himself or his network. Of course, it probably also didn’t help his confidence knowing that Stewart had a video clip lined up to refute nearly everything he said.

  13. mdh says:

    pruette – just what ammo did Cramer have to “go harder on” Stewart with?

    That only ONE of Stewarts people ever managed to berate Bush’s lousy policies to his face?

  14. Chris Williams says:

    Bloody hell, he’s Jack Barron. And that’s a good thing.

  15. urshrew says:

    @BEN

    Yeah, its true, the blame doesn’t all fall on Cramer. He’s the only one with the balls to get up and try to defend his irresponsible actions. He failed, but that only shows that these people wouldn’t get so far if there was anything like real reporting in any major news network. Then, I wouldn’t have to go to a court jester to get a real assessment on what’s going on in the court.

  16. El Stinko says:

    @BEN I totally agree with you. I generally side with Jon on most arguments, but his technique is unjust. He incites debate with accusations framed as jokes (and rightfully so in most cases), but if the scorned party provides a rebuttal, he hides behind the “but-we’re-not-news-we’re-comedy” shield. He does it right at the beginning of this interview with the ‘snake-oil’ comment.

    He then goes on to lecture, not debate or crack jokes, about his opponent. He delivers lines with the clear intent of garnering audience applause, and he doesn’t give his opponent a chance to speak. As soon as they get to the point of their rebuttal, he cuts them off (and he does this to all his guests not the ones he’s debating with). I think this undermines his arguments.

    I think Jon and the producers of The Daily Show should decide whether they are doing a comedy show or a debate show. Because this interview wasn’t comedy. Jon scolded and lectured and cracked hardly any jokes during the entire interview. He can’t do that and then pretend it’s satire. It’s unfair and it swings sympathy to the opponent.

  17. Svenski says:

    “…attacked average working-class people who got caught up in the sub-prime mortgage crisis.”

    These people are not average working-class people, unless we’re saying that average working-class people are as dumb as dirt. They were people who didn’t understand what they were signing and didn’t use something called common sense and critical thinking – as in “Gee, you mean I only have to put a tiny amount down and make small monthly payments and I can own a home”. What idiot believes that?

    I’m an average working-class person. How come I didn’t get caught up in this? Oh yeah, I read my mortgage before I signed it and understood that it was a 30 year fixed.

  18. teufelsdroch says:

    Huh.

    Thing is, Cramer at least UNDERSTANDS the problem. He, personally, seems to have the brains of a real journalist. It’s not his fault he’s on television and he’s got to talk to that audience.

    I side with Cramer because his career is clearly over. Moral: don’t go viral against Jon Stewart.

  19. BadKittyM says:

    Interestingly, even though it isn’t making regular media, some of the players (granted, at this point the minor ones) ARE getting charged. In particular, those involved in real estate fraud (brokers, appraisers, agents, etc.). I can only hope that instead of just trickling down, it also wells upward. I’d love to hear that heads are starting to roll in all aspects and areas.

    Jon is the perfect ‘chop subject. He can’t make an everyday ‘face’ to save his life.

  20. Alex_M says:

    I doubt Cramer’s career is over. If it is, it wouldn’t be due to Stewart but due to CNBC making Cramer the scapegoat.

    I don’t think he does understand the problem. The guy did dirty stuff with his hedge fund. He had no problems taking the words of CEOs and execs at face value and then authoritatively tout them as facts or ‘insightful commentary’ on his program.

    Just because he NOW admits he screwed up is stating the obvious.

  21. urshrew says:

    “It’s unfair and it swings sympathy to the opponent.”

    Only if you can’t tell the difference between someone with an actual position and a crook.

  22. ZippySpincycle says:

    Geoff Sebesta @ 93 is absolutely right on the money–it’s incredible to me that Cramer somehow became the poster child for CNBC’s crappy reporting, when the piece that started it all was Stewart’s response to Santelli. Why should we bail out those losers who thought that the market would go up forever? After all, if they’d only listened to the financial experts at CNBC…

  23. PaulR says:

    Look at the journalism that fake journalists do.

    Look at the fake journalism that journalists do.

    Jeepers, ever wonder why no one’s reading newspapers?

  24. moniker42 says:

    Wow.

  25. The E says:

    Wow. Just, wow. Stewart can be really, really scary.

  26. arkizzle says:

    BadKittyM WIN!

    I was doing one and stopped immediately! Perfect! :D

  27. Phikus says:

    Erroneous: “Never mind those four fingers pointing back the other way.”

    Do you have double jointed thumbs or can you not manage simple arithmetic? I don’t know if you should be commenting on the complexities of the marketplace if you can’t count the fingers pointing back at you when you point at someone else, and by the way, where were your fingers pointing when you did that? You can’t see them, can you, when your head’s up your ass?

    “…where were you in 2005 when all the house flipping shows were promising exactly that?”

    He was probably watching something vastly more entertaining, which wouldn’t be hard to find. You require your TV commentators to be omnipresent to be relevant? Good luck! If you have to ask why such issues are topical now, then your head’s too firmly planted to ever see the light of day. Who else is speaking such truth to power?

    -And we heard you the first time you spewed that, but we’ll get cracking on that time machine just for you.

    Go find something useful to complain about, willya?

    Badkittym: You’re my hero for the day!

  28. stumo says:

    Full versions now on thedailyshow.com – I recommend looking at the 3 ‘outtakes’ segments to see the full interview (they’re not just outtakes, they include everything that was in the show as well).

    Interesting to see if this does lead to a change of tone.

  29. Anonymous says:

    While I enjoy watching Cramer every night, one must remember the show is primarily entertainment. The financial networks exist to promote their advertisers financial and investment products. Who would expect them to warn about the credit bubble or coming Washington national debt collapse which will destroy much of the remaining private wealth in America today or what this will do to the dollar, the stock market, bonds, gold or the real estate market?

    China is now worried about their dangerous over investment in US Treasury obligations. Washington ’s long-term choice is either repudiation or monetization. For monetization to be effective, the depreciation in the dollar would have to be substantial and this in turn would dramatically raise prices of imports for American consumers which would mean a tremendous drop in foreign imports. Debt monetization would cause more disruption to exporting nations than selective repudiation of Treasury debt.

    The Campaign to Cancel the Washington National Debt By 12/22/2013 Constitutional Amendment is starting now in the U.S. See: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=67594690498&ref=ts

    Thanks,

    Ron with 30 plus years in the investment business and banking industry.

  30. Ocker3 says:

    HuffPo (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/11/jim-cramer-shorting-stock_n_173824.html) also has a much older interview with Jim Cramer where he admits to flouting SEC rules and screwing with stock prices to meet his quotas. I call douchebag.

  31. Ernunnos says:

    “But it’s a c-awwwwww-medy show!”

    Oh yeah, because ranking on Jim Cramer is a barrel of laughs. But there was no absurdity in a 800 square foot shack in Compton selling for $1,000,000. Nothing funny about bloated sacks like Angelo “Orange” Mozilo, Barney Frank, and Chris Dodd. Nothing to mock when blubbery-lipped Alan Greenspan mumbled about “froth” in the markets. No blogs like Housing Panic doing all the necessary research for you and often playing it for humor.

    But now that everything has gone to shit, people are losing their homes and their jobs, now it’s comedy gold?

    Do you hear yourselves?

  32. Cazart says:

    What drives Jon crazier-than-crazy is the behavior of the media in general. Its suckuptitude, short attention span and focus on feeding the 24 hour maw gets people killed in Iraq, and gets them broke in the US.
    It seemed to me the subtext of this interview was not so much, “Jim, you suck”as it was “Jim! You’re talented! Use that talent to take these fucks down!”

    I hope he listened. I like Cramer. When he screws up, he generally owns up. I’d like to see him turn this thing around and start whaling on these theives.

  33. robulus says:

    Yep. Its just a comedy show. Stewart is just a comedian.

  34. Boeotian says:

    Man, Cramer just stood there helpless like a child against Jon’s reasonable arguments.

    But it seems Cramer can be more reasonable than I expected. And I can’t help but feel slightly (and just slightly) sorry for him, because, as it was mentioned above, he’s clearly being made CNBC’s scapegoat. I wonder if he even noticed that.
    And Santelli apparently is getting away with all that, that ranting asshole…

  35. busydoingnothing says:

    Truth in comedy. This is the reason why The Daily Show is so good, and hits so hard like it has this time around. Other forms of entertainment can rely on complete fabrication, fiction, and smoke and mirrors, but the comedy at its best works when it exposes the truth.

    I’m a standup comedian (yeah, I can call myself that; I do open mics several times a week), and that’s what I aim for in my writing. The best standup comedians are grounded in reality, are looking at the same things we see every day, and put it in words that strike a nerve inside us, forcing us into a fit of laughter, thinking, “Holy shit, it’s true.”

    Only people in great denial who are so far up their ass can completely dismiss The Daily Show as “just a comedy show.” Everyone else knows the truth.

  36. Cowicide says:

    teufelsdroch, Cramer UNDERSTANDS the problem because he is PART OF the problem.

  37. lego7 says:

    I feel sad that this is even “news”

  38. yatima says:

    Can someone PLEASE do a picture of Jon Stewart as The Comedian from WATCHMEN? You’d win the internetz.

  39. Shlepzig says:

    Once again Jon Stewart and the Daily Show skewers regular news outlets, calling for simple honesty and integrity. What an astounding idea.

    If Jon was really concerned that people keep coming to the daily show for real news, he should stop being so good at reporting it.

    (Was it me, or did Jim Kramer look like he was going to cry the whole time, or does he just look like that?)

    -Shlep

  40. error404 says:

    BOEOTIAN

    that is spot on.

    Totally calm reasonable argument and he is completely contrite.

    It was oddly childlike.

    When a kid is off doing bad things and being badly behaved with the other bad kids, they all swagger and try to be,if not the top dog bad kid ,part of the crew…right up until their mother turns up and BAM they are 8 again and in deep shit for being bad.

    Worse, they are seen to be only a little kid in front of the other bad kids.

    The videos of Cramer and the sundry other bad kids bragging and swaggering about how much they screw the rules then cutting back to this pathetic mendicant figure was awful.

    All of the money journos seem to want to be on the inside looking out, never the other way round.

    That is where the problem for financial reportage starts.

  41. Anonymous says:

    I love that euphemism for crime: shenanigans. It kinda softens the gravity of $Trillions in theft.

    This some of Stewart’s best stuff.

  42. bardfinn says:

    “Because this interview wasn’t comedy.”

    Speak for yourself.

  43. mdh says:

    Just because he NOW admits he screwed up is stating the obvious.

    Except…. it’s really hard to get anyone involved in finance to admit any mistakes, EVER.

  44. Anonymous says:

    Gawd bless Jon Stewart!

  45. yakta says:

    #27 Ernunnos: you miss this simple point (a point stated by many people and by Stewart himself in the very clip you’re bashing): STEWART DOES NOT CLAIM TO BE A FINANCIAL EXPERT. Cramer and the bulk of CNBC a-holes have been flying under such expert flags FOR YEARS. They’re a crucial part of the problem. They in reality do cheap cheerleading for their rich buddies but they are now too void of moral decency to admit it.

    It is also obvious that Cramer has taken some sort of media training before the interview. He repeatedly tries to present himself as the little guy (“I’m four”, “this is your show”, and so on) but faced with the facts it just does not work. You can’t be an immoral, irresponsible elite cheerleader for so long and then get away with pretending that you’re not.

    Let’s face it. CNBC cheerleads for a egoism first sociapathic clique and their ideology. Finance is just another area where the Ayn Rand morons have been allowed to run amok and shatter the financial lives of countless others. The people needs media that challenges power. In an age where power more than ever resides in big corporations and ayn rand-ish ideologs then that’s where the critical focus should be. But of course, the owners of big media (and source of ad revenues) and onboard with that. The fact that a comedian has to call their bullshit is strong evidence for that on economic issues, big media pushes an extreme right wing view that hates the state and the majority of americans.

  46. Teresa Nielsen Hayden / Community Manager says:

    Robert Evans @94, you are an employee of Pristine Publishing, and what you have posted there is an advertisement.

    Moreover, it’s misleading. That book isn’t an expose of Wall Street scams, backstabbers, and con artists. It’s a pre-crash book about how to become a hedge fund trader, which makes it about as relevant as a book about how you can make big money in the hot new field of MS-DOS programming.

    You can find your missing vowels next to the spot where the book is shelved at your local Barnes & Noble.

    In short, you’re entirely welcome to hang out in Boing Boing’s comment threads and join in the real conversations; but if you post any more ads here, Bad Things Will Happen.

  47. Phikus says:

    Ok, Photoshoppers, can has Cramer / Kramer mashup? Maybe even Cramer vs. Kramer? (Put the time machine on hold, folks.)

  48. ROSSINDETROIT says:

    Someone needed to haul those CNBC free market cheerleaders back into line and Jon was just the guy for the job, but seriously, who gets their investment advice from the television? Cramer’s an entertainer.

  49. Pruette says:

    @ #88 uknowbetter,

    Rock on! I would love to see more serious scrutiny of the lame/conflicted slushpuppy congressmen like Barney Frank, Dodd, and even Lawrence Summers.

  50. incramerwetrust says:

    so when I go to the cnbc website …and type ” in cramer we trust” in the search bar…. that phrase can’t be found on the site ….. what’s up with that ??

  51. imajication says:

    Man, perhaps John shouldn’t go back to making fart noises, he can give a devastating interview when he wants to. I’m sure they prepared for that a lot more for that interview than for the usual softy interviews he gives, but still. He had all his ducks in a row, the clips all lined up, and demolished the dude.

    Why does is go so easy on Bill O’Reilly when he’s on?

  52. Ernunnos says:

    @Phikus, get with the times.

    He was probably watching something vastly more entertaining, which wouldn’t be hard to find.

    And that’s why he wasn’t relevant then, and still isn’t relevant today. There are still plenty of stories waiting to be told that could be both entertaining and informative. But you’re not going to hear ‘em on TDS. Just the superficial shit that will get a cheap laugh and be forgotten when the real news comes down.

    @Cazart,

    It seemed to me the subtext of this interview was not so much, “Jim, you suck”as it was “Jim! You’re talented! Use that talent to take these fucks down!”

    “Physician, heal thyself.”

  53. demidan says:

    Dear Lord the slaughter! And yes it did look Cramer was about to cry on more than one occasion. I second IMAJICATION John should do more “real” reporting. John Lennon’s Imagine comes to mind just substitute the religion theme with reporting.

  54. Tyro Prate says:

    I completely agree with Jon Stewart here, but am I the only one who wishes he would have let Cramer talk? I kept laughing when he called it his “interview with Jim Cramer,” instead of his, “harangue at Jim Cramer,” which is more accurate. Jon Stewart has a history of doing this. But, like I said, I agree with his points.

  55. ROSSINDETROIT says:

    Cramer looks apologetic but this isn’t going to make any difference to his show. His job is to produce spectacle. To keep eyeballs on the screen until the next commercial. He doesn’t need to be right or even credible, just watchable. That’s the problem with TV. It looks like they’re there for you but they’re really there for the advertisers, who don’t give a damn what happens to you as long as you buy. Want to really clean up CNBC? Tell the people who buy commercial time that CNBC is a con and it reflects badly on their products. Advertising dollars are the only force that drives change.

  56. Geoff Sebesta says:

    It’s a shame Cramer got what Santelli deserved.

    Cramer has a little bit of a conscience and a sense of shame, and that’s why he’s becoming the lightning rod in this. He’s among the best of a bad lot, IMO, and that shows here.

    Admittedly, his cringing beta-dog servility does him no credit. And it would have been a funnier interview if he’d tried to bluster his way through.

  57. Anonymous says:

    Cramer, like a surprisingly large number of Americans, is mathematically illiterate. Cramer is a ‘people’ person, which is to say he judges all his interactions on the perceived assessment of the other person. This makes him a syncophant and a schemer, but capable of eliciting sympathy.

    I actually think his recent touring of other’s shows is a smart attempt to ‘audition’ his next job, as he sees the ‘writing on the wall’ for his current one.

    Stewart, on the other hand, (and/or his writers) see the game for what it is. My only concern about his position is that he seems to think this decade-at-a-time business cycle is a corruption of the system, rather than the elaborate gambling machinery it is, where taxpayers *always* fund the bankers’s excess.

    Yes, Jon, ‘capital’ is spoiled rich people getting richer off the backs of the poor, which is the actual function of wall street and even moreso banks.

  58. GertFroebe says:

    Wow! Very impressive Mr. Stewart! That Cramer-guy is finished. Who would take this guy seriously anymore!?

  59. stratosfyr says:

    #85
    If you have instead entrusted these $$s with a “professional” money manager, then you would do well to scrutinize these agents and specifically construct a relationship with them such that their interests (read compensation) are happily aligned with your own.

    They will always, always tell you that they want to make YOU money. And good luck figuring out if they want that more than making themselves money, or if they’re any good at it, or if someone higher up the chain isn’t going to screw them anyway.

    If you invested heavily in a successful, well-run, ethical business, but that business’ main supplier invested in some stock that crashed, and there is no alternative supplier and the business you invested in goes under as a result — good luck to you.

    It’s massive house of cards. Ideally, there should be some glue holding at least a few of the cards in place, so if a few cards fall, the whole stays in place. CNBC and others like them should have been pointing out that there wasn’t enough glue.

    It would have been nice if TDS had caught on to this a bit earlier — but they were a little busy with Bush, Iraq, Guantanamo, and the never-ending spectacle of the nominations and elections.

    It’s too bad Stewart can’t call people to account like this more often, but frankly if he tried he’d never have a guest again. Yeouch.

  60. ben says:

    @ROSSINDETROIT You know, The Daily Show is on TV as well…

    But, I dislike this type of “interview” Stewart does on occasion. He repeatedly states that his show is not for news and not to be taken seriously, then turns around and tries to do real reporting. I’m not sure if I should take it seriously or not.

    And, if you’re going to call it an interview, at least give the guy a chance to speak every once in a while. This is more along the lines of burning at the stake.
    Stewart: Are you or have you ever been a witch?
    Pause
    Stewart: Witch! Burn him!

    Rabble rabble rabble!

  61. jimh says:

    To those who think that Stewart didn’t let Cramer talk, I really don’t think he had anything more to say in his own defense. And I’ll also say that Stewart’s manner was pretty courteous to the man who had made the talk show circuit over the last three days pleading innocent and talking smack.

    TDS is a comedy show, but Stewart gets serious when the people he rightly skewers accuse him publicly of errors of fact or omission. He tends to sink his teeth in when this happens, because while his show is fake news, it’s based in fact and he believes in having the story right.

    What I saw was Cramer saying “Sure, shenanigans! But I wasn’t a part of them…” and then Stewart showing clips of Cramer bragging about being a part of them.

    And ERNUNNOS- are you saying that Stewart shouldn’t be doing this story because it’s old news and instead he should be busy trying to predict the next big story? That’s not his job. He makes fun of, and/or points out with amazing accuracy and wit, current events. He isn’t a watchdog for future calamity, or potential wrongdoing. However, with respect to the markets, one might have turned to a financial expert with his own cable financial advice show for such information, and we’re seeing how well that worked out.

    I’m grateful to have Jon Stewart, and I hope he keeps up the good work.

  62. wolfwitch says:

    I’d like to see John crucify Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh. Of course I doubt either of them would have the balls to actually go on The Daily Show now.

    I did actually feel sorry for Cramer after last night.

  63. five says:

    #12:

    I feel sad that this is even “news”

    are you serious? why?

  64. urshrew says:

    When everything is absurd, only the comedians only make any sense.

    The Daily Show, as represented by John Stewart is right. Our investments are being used by these men to finance their wild adventures. “It is disingenuous at best and criminal at worst.”

    By the way, I want to see more “these are your actual words” interviews. Its the age of constant media, where you can be recorded and played back instantaneously. Its now time to make these j-o’s take some responsibility for their statements.

  65. Anonymous says:

    @ #18, I totally agree. While Mr. Stewart was fairly on target for his rant, I felt that it would have been more amusing/sickening if he had let Cramer hang himself further. I’m going to check out the unedited version now.

  66. Anonymous says:

    Oh, okay. GOD bless, Jon Stewart. Is that better?

  67. ben says:

    @urshrew Yes, more statements out of context is clearly what we need. That’s just an excuse to lampoon a guy without actually doing any journalism.

  68. lime_green_me says:

    I agree with Ben & Tyro Prate– I am usually a huge Jon Stewart fan, but I thought the interview was more of a moralistic deluge than any real sort of interview, and for that reason, not very interesting. We *know* how he feels about things. And Cramer is not the best spokesman for CNBC– for most of his rant, it seemed that Jon would have been more relevant had he been talking to the CEO. Cramer’s show is an infotainment show, just like the Daily Show. He could have at least gone rabid after one of their reporters. Clearly Jon Stewart is a brilliant guy that has an interesting perch from which to make shots– sometimes it’s brilliant– but this time, it was a misdirected use of a bully pulpit.

  69. robert evans says:

    Hll.. w jst pblshd n ncrdbl bk tht xpss ll th Wll Strt scms whch nclds brngng ll ths xct thngs t th frfrnt ncldng Crmrs’ wn scms tht h tlks bt n ths vds… Th bk s clld Hdg Fnd Trdng Scrts Rvld by vtrn Wll Strt trdr Rbrt Drfmn…. t s vlbl t mst bk sls sts wrld wd ncldng r wn prstnpblshng.cm nd th hrd cvr wll b n strs n fw wks. S f y njy rdng bt ths wll strt bck stbbrs nd cn rtsts, nd wnt t lrn hw th mrkts rlly wrk nd thn ctlly lrn th strtgs t mk mny, th ths bk s dfntly fr y.
    by rbrt vns

  70. Pruette says:

    @ #91 MDH

    Cramer could have easily defended his personal record. The performance of his Trust Assets is easy to produce. In most of the selected clips Stewart used, Cramer had subsequently changed his position. The fact that he got caught up trying to defend the sloppy work of CNBC at large, and for that matter you can lump in most of the talking heads from all the networks, was his big mistake.

  71. yachtboy says:

    Jon’s always had a problem letting his guests talk. He’s not, after all, a journalist–something he points out frequently. A good investigative reporter will ask a pointed question, then stand back and wait to see what happens. Jon asks a pointed question and then gets in the way of the answer, and this interview suffered badly for that.

    Cramer, on the other hand, is in a very tough spot and I feel a little bit bad for him. He is being made the fall guy for this, even though he’s really not the worst of the bunch by a long shot. But he’s become the face of CNBC and now the cowards who run the network are serving him up like lamb. The real question–one that he kept avoiding even though he’s more than smart enough to know what Jon was getting at–is why the hell the “news” networks have turned into entertainment networks. The whole point of having a free press is to keep the powers-that-be on their toes. The regulators didn’t bring down Nixon, reporters did.

    The freedom of press is one of our most important rights, and with that right comes the responsibility to use it. Over the last 10+ years, the press has shirked that responsibility and that has been a big contributing factor to the mess we’re in now. Real dirt-digging, shoe-leather reporting is sadly lacking in today’s world. Pretty much the only investigative journalism out there in the mainstream is now 60 minutes and the Daily Show/Colbert Report duo. The real irony here is that this kind of difficult, compelling, hard-hitting interview is exactly the kind of thing CNBC *should* be featuring regularly. They’ve got the staff, the connections, the location, the format, and the press credentials, but they never did any actual reporting or digging. They just read the press releases as gospel truth and put guys like Cramer on as entertainers.

    People say that the reason we don’t have good investigative reporting — the kind that CNBC should have been doing but didn’t, which is why Stewart is so rightfully pissed off — is because it’s boring and nobody will watch it. But the thing is, people LOVE good investigative reporting. Check out the huge amount of attention this thing is getting, the giant spike in ratings TDS will get and probably the big spike Cramer will see, too. Everyone loves a scandal, and instead of hopping into bed with the bankers and wall street tycoons and becoming part of the scandal, CNBC was in a position to out the Bear Stearns and Bernie Madoffs of the world. But they didn’t, and that’s what this is all about.

    Let’s hope that this leads not to a fall for Cramer, who’s been somewhat unfairly set up as a fall gu, but to a return to real journalism across the board, including in the financial sector.

  72. Mindpowered says:

    Was I the only person here who followed people who saw CNBC for what it was?

    http://www.kitco.com/ind/grandich/jan152007.html

  73. 2HourHiatus says:

    Uncomfortable to watch? Check.
    Totally and completely awesome? Check.

    Jon Stewart scared the hell out of me, I’m so glad I wasn’t in Cramer’s shoes.

  74. Phikus says:

    @31-@34: Well said! If only everyone in TV news / talk had the balls, intelligence, and humor that Jon regularly displays we would have a whole different world to live in.

  75. Ernunnos says:

    Where was Stewart’s reporting during the housing bubble? He had television time. He had an audience. Was he warning people? No? Shut the fuck up, Jon.

    Yes, Cramer was wrong. But at least he gets it now. He’s not one of the people still in denial that Obama’s gonna’ make everything alright.

    You can point out his past mistakes, you can even make him cry, but it’s not going to change anything. The laws of economics will continue to grind on. You’d think that after having missed such an important story for so many years – even Time Magazine was sounding warnings as early as their June 13, 2005 cover story, so it didn’t take a genius – Stewart might want to be looking forward to the next big story. Well, it’s here, and it’s obvious, and he’s still not telling the public what they need to know.

    Less Jim Cramer, more Jim Rogers.

  76. Shlepzig says:

    Personally, I thought Jon Stewart kept running on was that Jim Cramer had nothing to say. He just raised his hands and said, “you got me” on more than one occaion. Cramer kept his answers short, and perhaps the questions could have been structured to draw more conversation out of him.

    I am cynical that CNBC or anyone will start reporting the things that Jon Stewart is asking for. Even reading the WSJ on a regular basis, news of impending doom is usually drowned out by the rah-rahs. People certainly would rather read the good news.

    Any pragmatist would know that nothing can always go up in value. That bubbles will always burst. Jon Stewart said it best in the interview that we are a working people and the value this country has is in our labor. When we (as a culture) buy the idea that we can get something for nothing then we are willfully drinking the kool-aid the “Cramers” of the world are handing us.

    There is still a market for get rich quick “no-money-down”schemes just as there is a market for cocaine and hookers. We should have the good sense that any of three are probably not that good for us.

    -Shlep
    PS no offense to the hookers.

  77. Ernunnos says:

    STEWART DOES NOT CLAIM TO BE A FINANCIAL EXPERT.

    So? Since when do journalists have to be experts before they can report the news? The Daily Show is put together by Jon Stewart, all by his lonesome, with no staff? Nobody he can call? Nobody to surf the web for interesting stories, nobody to read Time Magazine cover stories for potential material? And no interest in hiring people like that so he could, I don’t know, use humor to speak truth to power and alert Americans to issues they might want to hear about before they buy a massively overpriced house, end up underwater and foreclosed on and out in the street?

    Oh no, he’s just a lowly comedian. An wide-eyed innocent. Shocked, shocked to discover that people in the press weren’t doing their jobs. Never mind those four fingers pointing back the other way.

  78. Pruette says:

    @#90] Tensegrity,and stratosfyr respectively:

    My point, which is getting more press by the day as it relates to rating agencies, is that the rating agencies and in this case the money managers/mutual fund managers etc. to whom we entrust our faith that they are operating in our best interests, need to be incentivized to do so. So when they lose your money, they don’t get paid. Or at least eliminate as many conflicts of interest as possible (like creating independent rating agencies). This will not be enough, of course; and ultimately we need a much more effective SEC to combat the financial ne’erdowells. So the question becomes, how will our frighteningly “financially ignorant” Congress be able promote a more effective SEC, or even staff it with people that do understand what needs to be done? Esp. with people like Barney Frank in charge who are abusing the perks of the system so agregiously that they couldn’t possibly change the rules, much less “fix” anything.

  79. unklstuart says:

    We should not forget the issue is that Stewart is taking CNBC to task, not Cramer or the banks or Wall Street. The Cramer interview and lying CEOs are icing.

    #24 Ben, just because the comments are “out of context” doesn’t mean the meaning has changed. Cramer first said he misspoke and then could not deny the market manipulation. I predict his employment with CNBC is near its’ end.

    Jon Stewart is my hero.

  80. Cazart says:

    #85 Pruette –

    “Stewart’s position, that we have all been fleeced by Wall Street, echos the common refrain from a lazy and increasingly gov’t-dependent public to have our mother-government take care of us. Its becoming rather pathetic.”

    What a swing-and-a-miss on Stewart’s position.

    The man’s reason for being is to call out the “serious journalists” on their suckiness. MSNBC got what they deserved. Sucks for Cramer that he ended up the whipping boy, but that’s also somewhat self-inflicted.

  81. Pruette says:

    Cramer was clearly too soft on Stewart, and in large part I believe this was due to Cramer’s choice to defend the CNBC brand instead of his personal actions. As an individual Hedge Fund manager, Cramer was legend and completely within his legal rights to game the system to whatever degree he could. The SEC exists to determine the legality of these actions.

    As for the greater claim that CNBC is somehow culpable for investment losses, wtf?!? If you are self-managing your 401k/IRA/savings, then you had better embrace the latin phrase, Caveat Emptor. If you have instead entrusted these $$s with a “professional” money manager, then you would do well to scrutinize these agents and specifically construct a relationship with them such that their interests (read compensation) are happily aligned with your own.

    Stewart’s position, that we have all been fleeced by Wall Street, echos the common refrain from a lazy and increasingly gov’t-dependent public to have our mother-government take care of us. Its becoming rather pathetic.

  82. grimc says:

    @ernunnos

    You keep going on about people underwater with their houses. You have no clue about the derivative market’s role in this mess, do you?

    And for everyone applauding Cramer for ‘having the balls’ to be the ‘fall guy’, remember that he’s a trader. He’s not contrite. He’s just cutting his losses.

  83. jemather says:

    @27 ERNUNNOS
    “Where was Stewart’s reporting during the housing bubble? He had television time. He had an audience. Was he warning people? No? Shut the fuck up, Jon. ”

    Uh, except TDS is not a show about finance? The focus of TDS is journalism, and that’s exactly what they called Cramer out for.

  84. ROSSINDETROIT says:

    I don’t know which is sadder, that a comedian is telling us that a TV network is not credible or that some people expect that it is.

  85. Ceronomus says:

    #13 – I had that same feeling. Cramer was obviously uncomfortable, nervous, and I thought ready to cry.

    That said, having watched the ENTIRE video, Cramer has a good amount to say, but cannot say ANYTHING to defend the actions of himself or his network.

    As for those thinking that he’ll be without a job? I doubt it. Had he tried behaving like Tucker Carlson? Then he might be unemployed. Instead he at least was man enough to come on and say “Yup, I screwed up. Yup, my network screwed up.”

    That did take a LOT of courage.

    I’ll be interested to see what his show looks like tonight. Will it change, or is it back to the same ol’ same ol’…and if it is the same old show, will Jon call him on it?

  86. Anonymous says:

    @27: Where was Stewart’s reporting? Non-existent, since he’s NOT A REPORTER. Even this Cramer thing isn’t reporting, it’s just more of TDS’s M.O. of reacting to news that actual news sources are reporting (or supposed to be.)

    It’s not his responsibility investigate this stuff. It is his responsibility, as a topical comedian, to entertain his audience by making fun of people who are supposed to investigate this stuff yet fail miserably. It’s hardly his fault the state of reporting is so bad that a comedian has to be the Only Sane Man to point out how absurd it all is.

    Srsly, as a companion piece to this interview, everyone should really look up Stewart’s Crossfire appearance from a few years back. It’s on Youtube, kids, find your own damn link. Tucker Carlson tries to get him with the same argument of “Why don’t you do more hard reporting instead of bitching about us” and gets slapped down. Hard. In Stewart’s words (quoted from memory): “You’re on CNN! The show that leads into me is puppets making crank calls!”

  87. angryhippo says:

    @ernunnos

    Scarborough, is that you…? The “logic” of saying that TDS isn’t allowed to talk about how CNBC failed horribly at the very thing they were selling themselves as because they didn’t predict the market better is twisted at best.

  88. Kay the Complainer says:

    I watched the whole video, too. Jon Stewart is the best journalist in America, but he only gets to be the best journalist in America because he calls himself a comedian and packages it as comedy. He’s like the jester who’s the only one who can tell the king the truth.

    Cramer looked devastated. He obviously DOES think this is a game, and Jon taking it seriously throws him completely off balance. My bet is that tonight he’ll be whining about how Jon was “unfair” to him.

  89. Tensegrity says:

    I thought it was quite civil and reasonable.

    Cramer has been cast, if unfairly as Stewart acknowledged, as the spokesperson for business journalism, but that comes with the territory of being a high profile business reporter/entertainer.

    He came off as a reasonable and knowledgeable and if anything his appearance on The Daily Show was an effective, reputation-saving move.

    Kudos to Stewart for raising the issue and kudos to Cramer for engaging in the debate in good faith.

  90. trueblue2 says:

    27: Because Jon does an entertainment show on current events and has never claimed it is anything but that. Investigative reporting isn’t part of their job. That’s the problem with CNBC – they claim to be a financial news network, but they’re more like E! for Wall Street.

    Traditional journalists need only watch this video and the interest it’s generating to understand why their publications and shows are failing. People are hungry for this kind of brutal honesty, and the fact that Jon Stewart is having to pick up the slack for them just illustrates how badly they’ve fallen down on the job.

  91. busydoingnothing says:

    @Ernunnos: The Daily Show reports on what other news networks are reporting on (and that doesn’t mean EVERYTHING they are reporting on). If they’re not reporting, The Daily Show is not reporting. You’re trying to turn The Daily Show into something it’s not.

    These other cable networks that The Daily Show satirizes claim to be legitimate news when all they’re hocking is cheap entertainment. The Daily Show claims to be entertainment while oftentimes hocking legitimate news in an entertaining fashion. There’s a distinct difference there, and I think that’s the point you’re missing.

  92. AsteriskCGY says:

    I watched this because I’m a big fan of both guys. Its probably a good thing I don’t invest though. A friend just lost his bet on BoA and GE going down yesterday.

    CNBC just got into a sense of complacency over the years of the bubble. This is sorta hitting rock bottom.

  93. Pteryxx says:

    To “Where was Jon Stewart’s reporting during the housing bubble?”

    I’m not familiar with TDS’s archive, but I would guess that as Jon Stewart has been basically the lone journalist calling BS on everything the entire Bush administration has been shoveling for the last eight years, it’s not surprising that he didn’t cover everything.

  94. BadKittyM says:

    I can has total Nerdgasm. Barry Ritholtz put my lil’ chop on his blog.

    http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/03/societys-only-protection/

  95. minTphresh says:

    jon stewart for king-high-shit-of-the-world! for those of you saying there was no comedy in last night’s show, you must have been watching a different daily show than i, cuz i laughed my balls off! i would pay good $ to see him interview/skewer bernie madoff! the only thing that could have been better would have been for the police to come and drag his criminal ass out of the studio at the end of the interview. after all, the s.o.b. practically admitted to several felonies during the q. & a.

  96. Brainspore says:

    Regarding Cramer becoming CNBC’s “scapegoat”:

    Maybe true, but it’s something he brought upon himself. Not only did he allow the network to adopt the slogan “In Cramer We Trust,” but he’s the one who chose to strike back at Stewart for showing clips of many financial pundits saying stupid things. The original segment didn’t focus on Cramer until he decided to turn the focus on himself.

    Regarding Stewart being “a comedian”:

    No he’s not. He’s THE comedian, bi-atch.

  97. Daemon says:

    Hey, I could actually watch the Daily Show clip on the linked article. Nice to know that some blogs link to non-region-locked versions.

    Hint, hint.

  98. Ratdog says:

    And a slap in the face to Joe Scarbourough

    Clearly, Stewart can do more than make funny faces after showing a video clip.

    He can be a kick ass journalist.

  99. uknowbetter says:

    When is Jon Stewart going to have on Barney Frank or Chris Dodd and grill them on Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the housing crisis?

    I still don’t understand why my last comment was removed; I guess it’s ok to refer to ‘Ayn Rand morons’ (see #57), but to question those assertions is frowned upon.

  100. urshrew says:

    #24 posted by BEN

    How exactly were any of Cramer’s statements ‘taken out of context’? Cramer clearly didn’t have a leg to stand on and Jon was mopping the floor with his integrity, because he showed that Cramer clearly had none by Cramer’s own words. Cramer couldn’t respond because he had no response not because Jon wouldn’t let him.

    I don’t see your argument at all.

  101. Ernunnos says:

    You keep going on about people underwater with their houses. You have no clue about the derivative market’s role in this mess, do you?

    It’s an amplifier, an enabler. And really, not a problem if the underlying assets are sound. Why do you think they’re so intent on avoiding mark-to-market? If they can deny that reality, everything will be fine! If that wasn’t the reality, everything would be fine. That’s why I focus on that reality. It is the root of the problem.

    The “logic” of saying that TDS isn’t allowed to talk about how CNBC failed horribly at the very thing they were selling themselves as because they didn’t predict the market better is twisted at best.

    What? You expected those with vested interests to expose themselves? I know why CNBC failed. I don’t approve, but they have a clear and understandable motive. There’s no understanding why outsiders – the very journalists we should be able to rely on for an independent view – refused to report on it.

    But, isn’t that part of the problem? Selling this idea that you don’t have to do anything. Anytime you sell people the idea that, “Sit back and you’ll get 10 to 20 percent on your money” – don’t you always know that that’s going to be a lie? When are we going to realize in this country that our wealth is work – that we’re workers – and by selling this idea of “Hey man, I’ll teach you how to be rich” – how is that different from an infomercial?

    That’s a great line. It’s very true. Bravo, Jon Stewart. And he didn’t need a degree in economics from Harvard to come up with it. But if you really believe that, Jon, where were you in 2005 when all the house flipping shows were promising exactly that? Was it any less obscene then than it is today? Any less deserving of humorous ridicule? Wouldn’t that have been the time to point it out?

    And if you missed it then, shouldn’t that prompt some self examination? “Wow, look at the obvious shit I missed that really could have made a difference – and made me look like a god among journalists in the process. Hmmm. Maybe there are stories like that today…”

  102. ramsey67 says:

    Stewart also has a partisan reason for blasting Cramer- Cramer called out Obama on his policies and performance. Stewart proceeded to “throw Cramer under the bus”.

  103. Tensegrity says:

    Epic win for BadKittyM

  104. failix says:

    That was oh so satisfying. I wish every interview he did was that merciless.

  105. Phikus says:

    Me@~61: The numbers appear to have changed (probably from the addition of anonymous comments after the fact?) Please read my kudos comment as directed at Kay through Pteryxx.

    Erroneous@~83: Ok, so you text and point with your thumb? And you’re calling Jon Stewart irrelevant? Dude! Ok, in all fairness, I forgot to account for troll anatomy. Maybe it is easier for you to point with your thumb. For most people here, it would be easier to admit you made a stupid mistake and stop pretending you alone have the only correct opinion to which all others should bow. When you get your own show, we’ll see how well you do. I, for one, have found you less than entertaining.

Leave a Reply