Influence of Media on Reality -- Jon Stewart Takes On Jim Cramer

[Pangloss]

Possibly a legendary, historic television interview took place last night on The Daily Show, when Jon Stewart took on CNBC's Jim Cramer. It was one of the best interview take-downs I've ever seen, and Cramer's excellent defense only heightened the sense of drama and the amazing depth to which the issue was explored.

 

In a nutshell, Stewart was taking Cramer and CNBC to task for participating in the problem -- for accentuating it, misleading people and knowing full well that it was an untenable problem, due for collapse. For his part, Cramer defended the financial networks, saying they do expose problems and admitting that they could do a better job of it.

 

I had two problems with Stewart's side of it: 1, that it's a bit hypocritical and hubristic on Stewart's part (like he doesn't do exactly the same thing when it comes to bad politics), and 2, that he waxed just a wee bit socialistic towards the end of Part 2 (we are WORKERS? we can only earn money on the backs of our labor? come on -- even Stewart admits knowing guys who work on Wall Street!).

 

But that aside he really nailed this issue and it was stunning to see it done so well on a commercial television program, of all places.

 

Part 1:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=220536&title=Jim-Cramer-Pt.-1

 

Part 2:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=220538&title=jim-cramer-pt.-2

 

Part 3:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=220539&title=jim-cramer-pt.-3

 

My personal opinion is that both sides have valid points, and the financial networks were definitely part of the problem. I think this is just part and parcel with the larger problem of the influence of media on society (in which Stewart himself is a willing participant, misleading people nightly about politics for entertainment purposes).

 

What do you all think?

[iNow]

I haven't watched it yet, but have it queued up on the DVR. Some relatively conservative guys I work with were talking about it today, and they all said that Stewart SPANKED Cramer, so I'm surprised to hear you suggest otherwise. Apparently Cramer responded to one of Stewarts questions about his being wrong by saying, "Well, making money takes a lot of time and a lot of hard work, and it doesn't just happen over night" and without missing a beat Stewart replied, "Your show is called FAST MONEY, you idiot!!!"

 

Looking forward to watching.

[bascule]

I watched it last night. It was kind of disappointingly one-sided. It reminded me of Jon Stewart taking on Tucker Carlson... here was Jon Stewart, on point and on fire... and Jim Cramer, not so much, more like a capitulating sycophant. Even Tucker Carlson put up more of a fight. This was the second case I've ever seen of Jon Stewart putting aside his comedy newsman persona and calling out someone from the mainstream media to confront them on the issue of hurting America.

 

I really love it when Jon Stewart does this sort of thing... cable news (be it financial or otherwise) is a barren wasteland which adds noise to the public discourse, particularly a show like Jim Cramer's. Throughout the interview Jim Cramer eventually identified what his role SHOULD HAVE BEEN in an ideal world, someone to call out the bullsh*t but that isn't what he did, at all.

 

The last time this happened CNN axed Crossfire. It will be interesting to see if CNBC axes Mad Money.

[iNow]

It reminded me of Jon Stewart taking on Tucker Carlson... here was Jon Stewart, on point and on fire... and Jim Cramer, not so much, more like a capitulating sycophant. Even Tucker Carlson put up more of a fight.

 

I just got done watching it, and had the exact same thought. Stewart is prepared, and articulate, and more than anything else, he cares and he's right. Yet, you know what? He'll just be labelled as a crazy leftie with a "fake news show" by those who'd rather throw feces on him than address his actual criticisms or make a sincere attempt to counter his points with meritorius arguments.

 

 

... cable news (be it financial or otherwise) is a barren wasteland which adds noise to the public discourse

 

VERY well said, man.

[Kaeroll]

Hr, interesting actually. I've only ever caught small parts of the Daily Show (usually the hilarious parts) so it's different to see Stewart being slightly more serious.

1, that it's a bit hypocritical and hubristic on Stewart's part (like he doesn't do exactly the same thing when it comes to bad politics)

To be fair, less than a minute into the second clip he points out that they're both "snake-oil salesmen" but that the Daily Show is clearly labelled as such.

 

Kaeroll

[swansont]

To be fair, less than a minute into the second clip he points out that they're both "snake-oil salesmen" but that the Daily Show is clearly labelled as such.

 

Exactly. Stewart (and Colbert) don't claim to be reporting news, and aren't on a network that claims to be reporting news. They're on Comedy Central. They do satire, and point out stupidity and hypocrisy, among other things.

[bascule]

Exactly. Stewart (and Colbert) don't claim to be reporting news, and aren't on a network that claims to be reporting news. They're on Comedy Central. They do satire, and point out stupidity and hypocrisy, among other things.

 

As Jon Stewart likes to point out the show before his is (or was) puppets making crank phone calls.

[ParanoiA]

As Jon Stewart likes to point out the show before his is (or was) puppets making crank phone calls.

 

Which was better than either of the satirical political shows that followed it.

 

I've just never much cared for mixing humor and politics that much (even though I loved Colbert's first season). I know, on its face it would seem like a breath of fresh air and a moment to step back from the battle. But it's never really used that way. People end up using it to validate their political beliefs and it seems to promote thoughtlessness and rewards the lazy intellectual.

[bascule]

I've just never much cared for mixing humor and politics that much (even though I loved Colbert's first season). I know, on its face it would seem like a breath of fresh air and a moment to step back from the battle. But it's never really used that way. People end up using it to validate their political beliefs and it seems to promote thoughtlessness and rewards the lazy intellectual.

 

Actually a survey showed Daily Show viewers were more informed than Fox News viewers.

 

Is it sad people learn more from fake news than from faux news?

[The Bear's Key]

I've noticed the left is, historically, able to make fun of itself. Humor is great, and a sense of humor even greater.

 

And that's right, the other guys actually pull all sorts of little crafty tricks to pass off as "real news". Even Bush's White House team passed off scripted commentary which Fox and others replayed as news items.

 

Comedy Central was waiting for news like this. On September 17, Stewart appeared on Bill O'Reilly's "The O'Reilly Factor" only to be told his viewers are "stoned slackers" and "dopey kids."

 

"You know what's really frightening?" O'Reilly asked Stewart. " You actually have an influence on this presidential election. That is scary, but it's true."

 

Comedy Central used its viewers' test scores Tuesday to strike back at Fox News Channel and O'Reilly's viewers.

Absolutely brilliant!

[jackson33]

Jim Cramer, is a former 'Hedge Fund' manager, having made a few billion during the 'Tech Bubble' crash(1999-2000), shorting Tech stocks and made billions for other investors, has been more accurate than most. He currently cannot hold stock having joined CNBC several years ago, but continues to control his own 'Charity Trust Fund', now suffering along with the rest of us. While I rarely agree with him, primarily for his Northeastern Liberal philosophy (Strong supporter of Spitzer, who took down several Corporate Executives before becoming Governor and so on...) and his general attitudes on other issues (bailout of individuals who made bad loans) he is as knowledgeable as any Market Annalist reporting today.

 

He works for GE, the parent company of NBC and then CNBC. What would seemingly be a contradiction of my own comments, one of his 'Themes' is the CEO 'Hall of Shame'. The CEO of GE, Jeffrey R. Emmett has never been on this list of ten, while GE has tumbled in both value and reputation for years since the last CEO Jack Welch retired. So do all reporters working for CNBC or for that matter NBC, there reporters including the Nightly News with Brian Williams, all of which have been under fire for one thing or another. To shorten, I might suggest you looks to President Obams adviser and who is advising him on business affairs, Jeffrey R Imett.

 

Pangloss; Of course, media can influence public opinion and has forever. It's only more obvious today with all the alternative information available. However any one on one debate should only be judged on full knowledge of the debaters. Cramer knew what he was in for and should have passed, others did. Why he went ahead, I don't know, but think I have laid out the probabilities.

[john5746]

Exactly. Stewart (and Colbert) don't claim to be reporting news, and aren't on a network that claims to be reporting news. They're on Comedy Central. They do satire, and point out stupidity and hypocrisy, among other things.

 

True, but then Stewart wants to be taken seriously when it suits him. This interview is case in point.

[iNow]

Yet CNBC wants to be taken seriously all of the time, and through their own ineptitudes have conceded that possibility (Stewarts presentation is a case in point).

[Pangloss]

Yet, you know what? He'll just be labelled as a crazy leftie with a "fake news show" by those who'd rather throw feces on him than address his actual criticisms or make a sincere attempt to counter his points with meritorius arguments.

 

Yes, that will happen, but remember -- it IS a fake news show. He often makes compromises in his "reporting" for the sake of humor, exaggerating or deliberately misinterpreting what actually happened in order to make a quick joke or to prod a specific socio/political group. Just like he accuses Jim Cramer of doing.

 

The only difference is that Stewart has an expectation that his audience will know the difference, and Cramer does not (or should not). But given that this very interview claims otherwise, and the overall idiocy of American television viewers (including Stewart fans), it becomes, unfortunately, a fairly subtle distinction.

 

That's the fine line he's walking, but I think if he keeps it on the level of personal frustration and animosity, rather than giving the impression of "weilding the full power of The Daily Show" (lol), I think it'll be fine.

[swansont]

True, but then Stewart wants to be taken seriously when it suits him. This interview is case in point.

 

Satire isn't always about being funny. Often there's a point to it.

 

TDS isn't a news program, because they make no pretense that they will cover the spectrum of stories one might expect. They probably aren't going to cover some very newsworthy events, unless the government gets involved and screws up, or (real) news programs cover it and screw up. Or screw up by not covering it (and covering something trivial instead).

 

The big difference here is that Cramer is touted by himself and by his employer as being an expert. One important point that Cramer brought up is that in finance, an expert isn't right every time, or even close to it. You can make a lot of money in finance by being right only 55% of the time, but that's hardly reassuring to someone who listened to the "experts" and lost their retirement fund.

 

But remember, this all started with Rick Santelli calling homeowners with failed mortgages "losers," and criticizing the administration for wanting to have part of the bailout go to paying off mortgages. And somehow not criticizing the people who ran their companies into the ground as losers, despite the fact that these people are supposed to know how to run their own businesses. And not pointing a finger at their own reporting, which was entirely to credulous. Cramer was one of several people criticized, not for merely being wrong, but being spectacularly wrong.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/05/jon-stewart-eviscerates-c_n_172057.html

 

 

Edit to add: I think it boils down to whether your primary mandate is to entertain or inform. Clearly (I hope) TDS has the mandate to entertain first, inform second. CNBC's is the opposite, or, if it isn't, they need to do a much better job of informing their audience of that.

Edited March 15, 2009 by swansont

[iNow]

This issue was discussed heavily on the Sunday morning political shows this morning, and the key consensus seemed to be a feeling of relief that we were finally talking about this. The idea is that we needed someone to raise this issue for discussion, and that the only people who don't take Stewart seriously are the ones who don't bother to watch him.

 

Another idea that was praised was how Stewart shed light on the broader feeling in the populace that we have an unfair and broken system, and how those who work hard and follow the rules are no longer rewarded for doing so. He raised a deeper issue that people are gaming the system, and those following the rules are getting badly hurt for doing the right thing and being actual contributors.

 

 

Here are the clips from THIS WEEK with George Stephanopoulos, one from the show which aired on television, the other the web-extra green room conversation which took place after the show:

 

(Main airing - Go to ~ 3:35 minutes left in the video): http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=7086565

(Green Room Web Extra): http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=7087159

[Pangloss]

I caught that this morning -- never thought I'd ever agree with Frank Rich about ANYTHING, but he actually sounded quite reasonable this morning.

 

 

I think it boils down to whether your primary mandate is to entertain or inform. Clearly (I hope) TDS has the mandate to entertain first, inform second. CNBC's is the opposite, or, if it isn't, they need to do a much better job of informing their audience of that.

 

Interesting. Not a bad premise, that.

[john5746]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/16/AR2009031602319.html

 

I liked this article. Who jests the court jester?

[Pangloss]

Good article -- Cohen captures my concerns very well. He also brings up a point I hadn't considered, which is simply that CNBC could not have known about the problem. That may be a bit of an oversimplification, but it does support the view that they can't be held responsible.

 

Stewart, too, rides the zeitgeist. The hunt is on for culprits and scapegoats, and Stewart has served up a cliche: the media. As with the war in Iraq, for which credulous media should take some responsibility, the sins are blown out of proportion. It would be one thing if Wall Street titans by the score were selling their company stock and the media were failing to report it, but when someone puts his money where his mouth is, you have to pay attention. The big shots believed.

 

Stewart plays a valuable role. He mocks authority, which is good, and he mocks those, such as the media, who take the word of authority as if, well, it's authoritative. But given the outsize reception to his cheap shot at business media, he ought to turn his wit inward: Mocker, mock thyself.

 

And therein lies the real rub -- Stewart is a demagogue, no different from Rush Limbaugh, he's just a bit more polite and realistic about it. Like all demagogues there is both great power and great danger in that role.

[bascule]

And therein lies the real rub -- Stewart is a demagogue, no different from Rush Limbaugh

 

I think he's considerably different from Rush Limbaugh. Jon Stewart is someone who is deeply concerned with making media/news better. He's certainly gotten the attention of the mainstream media, with some of them looking at him like something of an oracle:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/25/AR2008082502186.html

[Pangloss]

Rush Limbaugh is deeply concerned with what he perceived to be the liberalization of America, the shirking of responsibility, the socialization of economic policy, and so forth. And Jon Stewart being seen as an oracle is a negative, not a positive.

 

The difference is only in degree, IMO.

 

Jon Stewart Version 1.0?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius_Appuleius_Saturninus

[iNow]

Who wants to bet that this stuff with Stewart is nothing more than a well executed and coordinated response from neocons after Rush was attacked so publically a few weeks ago?

[Pangloss]

What "stuff" would that be? I don't take my talking points from neocons, and I'm not listening to Rush Limbaugh or any other conservative commentators these days.

 

And as far as I can tell 99%+ of the reaction to Stewart is positive and of the hero-worship variety.

[bascule]

Rush Limbaugh is deeply concerned with what he perceived to be the liberalization of America, the shirking of responsibility, the socialization of economic policy, and so forth. And Jon Stewart being seen as an oracle is a negative, not a positive.

 

Well, the next difference is that Jon Stewart actually accomplishes things. He got CNN to can Crossfire. If you read the article about the breakfast newscasters actually take him seriously (unlike Limbaugh). Jon Stewart is substantive in what he's trying to accomplish, and he's going after the news media themselves, not just prattling off substanceless partisan points because that's what his audience wants to hear.

 

I'd be perfectly fine with you making a comparison with Rush Limbaugh and someone like Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow, because they are largely demagogues pandering to their audience.

 

However, Jon Stewart may be primarily a comedian, but when he went after CNBC, and similarly when he went after Crossfire, he had some very poignant remarks to make, and his opponents were simply taken aback. Here was Mr. Funny Man being completely serious and completely on point.

 

Would you consider Stewart's clash with Cramer as mere demagoguery, or was Stewart actually substantive in his attacks?

[padren]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/16/AR2009031602319.html

 

I liked this article. Who jests the court jester?

 

I found rather bad - it completely changes the argument to one Jon Stewart wasn't making, and then points out the obvious that it is wrong.

 

Jon wasn't claiming that Cramer knew that in x weeks these companies would collapse, or even that the CEOs knew. The CEOs knew it was bad, but naturally they had the bias to believe it was manageable - it is there jobs after all to steer through adverse situations and come out on top. I don't think anyone suggested they dumped their stock Enron style.

 

The problem with Cramer is not that he "made a bad call" because of problems he couldn't have foreseen - he chose to be non-critical and essentially hero worship these guys that he considered friends and colleagues who ran what he felt were reputable companies. Had he (or anyone in the financial news, really) approached the emerging situation as journalists that do their homework and engage in critical thinking then some better questions may have been asked that could have cast light on all this before it got so out of hand.

 

Instead he sits next to Jon and pouts "they lied to me" like he's a schoolboy when he's on a news network advising people what is good and safe to invest in their money in.

 

I think Jon is right, and that article is completely wrong: no one in the financial news industry acted like actual journalists. They acted like MTV fluff news casters that ask fluff questions so teens and oooh and ahhh at their favorite celebrity pop stars without risking anything meaningful may be said. It was pure pander facilitation between keeping sponsors and viewers feeling warm and fuzzy. No journalistic integrity to worry about shaking things up should critical questions be asked.

 

I think that is what Jon is talking about, and from previous interviews I think that is an issue that bothers him about the current state of TV Journalism in general: It's become very selective to specific demographics of viewers and sponsors, and critical journalism becomes a far second to ensuring both of those groups feel warm and fuzzy*.

 

* or afraid, or angry, or whatever the network's style is.