On the day in October 2004 that Jon Stewart made up his mind to end CNN’s Crossfire, viewers didn’t have advance warning. By contrast, last night’s epic takedown of CNBC and Mad Money host Jim Cramer that built over an eight-day period, including the advance hype of a Thursday morning front-page, above-the-fold story on America’s most widely-circulated newspaper, USA Today.
It did not disappoint. In addition to an extensive confrontation that included footage of Cramer admitting to the ease of manipulating markets, Stewart indicted CNBC’s “sins of commission” in fueling hype that led to the economic crisis. I understand you want to make finance entertaining, but it’s not a (bleeping) game. And when I watch that, I get, I can’t tell you how angry that makes me. Because what it says to me is: you all know. You all know what’s going on. You know, you can draw a straight line from those shenanigans to the stuff that was being pulled at Bear, and AIG, and all this derivative market stuff that is this weird Wall Street side bet.
If you haven’t seen the must-see interview in the past seven hours overnight since it aired, here are the full, lengthier-than-televised outtakes, in three parts (note, un-beeped, explicit language):
Part One:
Part Two:
Part Three:
In an unaired segment around the six-minute mark of the third outtake clip, Stewart also passed his awarded mantle of douchebaggery from ex-CNNer Robert Novak (“Douchebag of Liberty”) to MSNBCer Joe Scarborough (“Doucheborough”).
Stewart told Cramer that he could go back to Scarborough’s Morning Joe with a message about Stewart’s role in the debate:You now have become the face of this, and that is incredibly unfortunate. Because you’re not the face of it, you shouldn’t be the face of it. You were the person that was, uh, I-don’t-know-what enough to stand up and go, "Hey, that wasn’t fair!" Which it’s not, because this show isn’t fair, and you can tell ‘Doucheborough’ it isn’t supposed to be fair.
In Morning Joe's first two segments this morning, including one where Scarborough railed against "a sickness on Wall Street," the Stewart-Cramer interview wasn't mentioned.
Wise.
3.13.2009
Stewart Destroys CNBC, Cramer, Disses “Doucheborough”
@ 6:25 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
209 comments
No one should ever dare to criticize Obama or they will be exposed to the full bore of ridicule.
Good job, Stewart, you are truly in Dutch with Obama and have got the whole Stalinist/Saul Alinsky messaging this down.
Sean in his glee over the efficacy of this is also part of the movement to silent free speech where it might have negative implications for Obama.
"Sean in his glee over the efficacy of this is also part of the movement to silent free speech where it might have negative implications for Obama."
Or, as it's also called, legitimate dissent vital for a free society and protected by the First Amendment.
PeteKent: So you're saying criticizing people who criticize Obama is an attempt to silence their free speech? Wouldn't a similar argument be that by criticizing Obama, his critics are attempting to silence Obama's free speech?
My god! If no one exercised their right to free speech, we'd then all be a lot freer to speak.
@PeteKent: the f**k does criticizing Obama have to do with it? Take off your conservo-glasses for a sec and try to pay attention to reality: the economy is in shambles, in large part because the financial leadership/elite were irresponsible with the money and trust that the general population placed in them.
Everything does *not* have to be framed in the recent elections. You know, the one that left your party in shambles. Again, try to focus a little bit on reality and you guys might get somewhere.
PeteKent: Nice troll bait. How's that ax looking? Nice and sharp after all the grinding? Good.
Cramer is not host of FAST MONEY. That is another show, Cramer is host of MAD MONEY. Get your facts right losers.
I love it when liberals attack other liberals. Stewart and Cramer are two pinhead losers.
Glad to see Democrat supporter Madoff off to jail. Let's round up a few more of these liberals and we will be on our way.
Good interview.
Had decorum.
"Cramer is not host of FAST MONEY. That is another show, Cramer is host of MAD MONEY. Get your facts right losers."
That's your best argument? You twit, it doesn't make a difference. It's a show on CNBC with another irresponsible host.
Will CNBC take this high profile opportunity to pivot, and to make a change? I hope so. Many of the folks on the network have talked about a structured failure for many of these insolvent banks, in which everyone (equity holders, bond holders, employees, and management) all has to take on board their share of the pain, which many of them call giving everyone a "haircut"... maybe we can give CNBC their own "Ego Haircut". After the Tech bubble burst, the network instituted a standard for disclosing conflicts in response to criticism. They don't use these protocols consistently, and they don't go far enough in my mind, but it indicates that they may be capable of adjustment. In particular, Jim Cramer seems like a pretty savvy guy, and if he thinks that he could selfishly take advantage of this moment to re-frame his program in order to get some of Stewart's viewers, he will.
But on the other hand there's a history of reticence at the news networks. For instance, Stewart's advice from the Hardball discussion hasn't stuck with the 24 hour news channels. Their programming still consists mostly of pairs of opposed talking heads who throw missiles at each other from rhetorical positions that don't share any sort of common touch points. Lets discuss potentially ending "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"... so the network producer goes and finds someone who believes that homosexuality is a terrible abomination before God that must be stopped at all costs, and someone who thinks that sexual choices between consenting adults should not be subject to religious-based legal stricture, and lets them fight like feral cats. Lets discuss Stem Cell research by bringing together someone who believes life begins at conception in every respect, and someone who thinks that's bizarre... but it make sure they just talk about the state of stem cell science, so it will be OK, right? No... it won't be OK. It will still make us dumber, even if you cancel Hardball.
So far for CNBC in particular, its not looking tremendously hopeful. I've been watching the first hour of their programming today. So far, no mention at all of the Daily Show thing. There has been a promo cut-out from last night's Mad Money that includes a prediction of a 1000 points and 10-15% upside if "Geitner comes on board", and two specific stock picks. In addition, the tone in this first hour has been a perfect illustration of all the things the network does wrong. They're speaking with prayerful hope that the market is going to be heading higher as if that was in and of itself a good outcome (which is insane), put two guys on to argue for why they think that bank stocks are about to head higher (without disclosing what stakes in the sector they had taken themselves), and have been discussing the good news for the stock of their own corporate parent. *sigh*
I'm an Obama supporter, Democrat, Daily Show fan, and regular CNBC watcher.
It seems we have reached the stage of "shoot the messenger."
Stewart has some good points in there, but I think the overall tenor of the CNBC backlash is troubling.
Because I watch CNBC, I knew there was a potential housing crisis roughly five years ago. CNBC was wondering aloud about a housing bubble; I remember a special which documented things like interest-only loans and warned of what might come.
Because of Jim Cramer, I took most of my money out of traditional stocks in summer of 2007. Remember his "you know nothing" rant? It circulated widely on the web, with a kind of "oh look, crazy person" attitude. He was right, and right in his most high-profile moment.
In fact, on September 11, 2001, I didn't turn to CNN or MSNBC or Fox. I watched CNBC. They're used to covering fast-breaking stories and sorting out rumor from fact while reporting both.
Sure, CNBC and Jim Cramer made some mistakes. But I'd be curious to hear from Nate on this one, rather than Sean--no offense to Sean, but Nate is the economist who follows the markets.
What's unfortunate is that Stewart shows clips that pillorize Cramer, when in fact there is probably nobody in the financial media besides him who ever exposes or criticizes shenanigans on Wall Street. If you read Cramer's books and columns on the web, he is constantly pointing out the problems with lax regulations and oversight, and he frequently suggests remedies.
However, Stewart is of course spot on about CNBC, and this does extend even to Cramer's show on CNBC, Mad Money (not Fast Money, as commented above). Cramer is far more critical in his writing than he is on his television show.
And the notion of investigative reporting on CNBC is truly laughable, with even figures like David Faber most often only doing any "investigating" after a story has broken elsewhere.
But it is the very nature of ALL reporting to be in bed with the institutions which largely control the production of news, be they corporations on CNBC, or white house spokesmen on political blogs, or the police on the crime beat, or the military to "embedded" war reporters, etc.
Most news stories are hand-fed to the press by the institutions who effectively control the "message." As the decades have passed, there have been fewer and fewer reporters willing to research or investigate anything, much less newspapers who are willing to print or televise such reporting.
It is good to see someone like Stewart demanding accountability, because that is the only potential way to improve the kind of news reporting, financial and other kinds, we get.
Cramer is not responsible for the declining popularity of the President and particularly his policies.
See:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123690358175013837.html
None of this campaign mode crap is going to be working in two months, when the rest of the vast majority who fear higher taxes, government and deficit figure out that they are getting exactly that. Obama forged a large governing coalition, most of which is made up of moderates. They DO NOT SUPPORT what he is doing. Period.
It is a pity there are no opposition news organizations anymore, and we must rely on comedians to tell us what is really going on in the world.
The problem is that CNBC is generally, with a few token exceptions, in ideological bed with the people they are supposed to cover. They have no real interest in exposing the hypocrisy, fraud, or wildly inappropriate compensation. CNBC thinks (perhaps rightly) that their audience wants to fantasize about trading their way to riches, so they are sycophants to the rich and powerful. Those guys are the heroes of both the CNBC anchors and (they think) their audience.
The entire network is designed to be some kind of masturbatory fantasy aid about wealth and women, which is the reason for the hot female commentators.
I think they would probably like to break some investigative news stories, but that is hard and expensive, and showing Erin Burnett uncritically accept the lies of some criminally negligent CEO is easy and cheap, so guess which one we see?
So we are left with comedians. Thanks, Jon Stewart. Sorry to take you away from your fart jokes and funny faces, but you have crimes to expose.
RE: Tony C.
Well said. I watch Stewart daily, and I am beginning to think he will become the most trusted news source/commentator for all but the far right!
@Jeff:
You don't know WTF you are talking about, buddy. Obama's "coalition" is 2/3 of the populace and is not mostly moderates. His approval rating is like 65%. The only people that do not approve of what Obama is doing are the hard-core right wing Republican crowd.
The 35% on the right are not the "moderates," or "swing voters." If that is who you classify as "moderates" then the word loses all meaning.
"Moderates" are by definition those in the middle of the political spectrum; so with anything over a 50% approval rating, the majority of moderates by definition approve of Obama's administration, actions, and policies.
Jeff the presidents popularity is not declining gallup has him at 63%
approval actaully up froma low of 59%. His negatives have gone up to a whopping 27%, which is about the % of people who consider themselves
republicans.
Now Cramer went on the daily show and took his lumps for CNBC but I still can`t see why he did it, Stewart just tore him up.
CNBC had an agenda as soon as Obama was elected they had it in for him. Business doesn`t like democrats and they made that apparent even though historically the stock market does better under them
The GOP is so screwed up right now I don`t see how they come back to parity for several election cycles. We have done it their way, the economy fell apart under their watch and tax cuts have shown not to be the answer.
All they can hope for is the economy to go into depression otherwise they are the party of Limbaugh and hatred, the average American doesn`t like the way they think and has no love for big business that has been out to crush the liitle guy for a generation now. If you ghet all your information from freerepublic you will be ill informed.
Tony C:
I love it. Only Obama supporters would cry out for "oppositional news sources" that will help advance the agenda of the White House. Isn't Limbaugh the opposition now? Your guys ARE the establishment now, and yet you long to slip back into your guise of the "radical opposition", casting stones at the machine. You can have your cake, or eat it. Not both.
As always, conservatives like Jeff are referring to opinion pieces from the editorial pages of the WSJ: (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123690358175013837.html)as if they are works of investigative journalism.
Ask a media critic like Jon Stewart what's wrong with the world and he's going to say the media. No surprise there. And he isn't wrong so much as myopic. Maybe even solipsistic. I like Stewart's show and I believe it gets closer to honesty in these things than most. But I also recognize that his "honesty" is just as much a demographically-targeted infotainment as anything Cramer does. The difference is who their advertisers are paying to get to.
Anyone else notice the Bank of America commercial last night? If the dissonance of that weren't something we're so accustomed to, it'd almost seem like a satire unto itself.
If we're talking about the culture that permitted deregulated and insane risktaking, overconsumption, and all that, I don't think either Cramer or Stewart is particularly responsible, but they are both more complicit than most. Stewart's habit of shrugging it all off, mugging for the camera, and then occasionally allowing himself some on-air righteousness is increasingly sad to me and less and less persuasive each time he does it. In some ways it's just a savvier version of what Cramer does on his show. It seems to me that different people watch these shows for the same reasons.
Does anyone see the irony of hoping that Jon Stewart is the one who has crimes to expose, and cheering him on when he criticizes other organizations for not doing enough real reporting? Stewart himself occasionally makes comments that people should not be coming to him for news, and yet surveys and anecdotes both show that many people do. While he can say that he is a comedian and not a serious news anchor, he is complicit in much the same way as Cramer (in other words, I agree with cfp). People who buys in the after-hours market on the basis of a Cramer recommendation (even though he tells people not to do that) and people who use Stewart as their primary news source (even though he says he's not a news source) are foolish.
@Jeff:
I prefer oppositional news sources, investigations and analysis regardless of politics. I am very unhappy with Obama going back on his promise to filibuster FISA, and other actions of the Obama administration regarding rendition and the rights of "enemy combatants" never convicted of anything because there is no evidence of their guilt.
I am a scientist first. I happen to be a liberal as well because I can think and understand how shit works, which is something apparently beyond your mental capacity. So let me spell it out for you:
This isn't a partisan issue. I want lies exposed no matter who is telling them; the more people know who is lying the safer they are. Period.
The fact that only comedians are pointing out the lies and misleading bullshit (like McCain railing over 1% of a budget as if it will bring down the country) is a travesty. In my mind that is the job of investigative reporters, and there aren't any left. None! To get ratings and sell commercials they have all died and been replaced by, as the Daily Show segment with Samantha Bee called it, NILF (News I'd Like to Fuck). It is all eye-candy now, except for a few instances where they worry about jumping the shark.
I donated to and voted for Obama, but Obama is not guilt-less here. He has gone back on his word to restore the Constitution and continues to shred civil liberties and support the idea of an imperial presidency. He can undo it with the stroke of a pen and thus far has failed.
Of course, McCain/Palin would have been a phenomenal disaster in my mind, so my choice was to help a morally compromised Obama overcome fuckin' Satan's Disciples, and I don't regret that choice. But you are mistaken if you think a vote and a few hundred dollars makes me a blind Obama acolyte. I don't trust him either, and I'd be happy to see evidence (not opinion) aired when Obama lies to us -- And Jon Stewart is not afraid to air clips on Obama's hypocrisy.
Comedians are the only equal-opportunity oppositional news sources left. Seriously.
Is Bernie Madoff a Republican?
Not on your life!
From opensecrets.org :
MADOFF, BERNARD
NEW YORK,NY 10022 SELF EMPLOYED/INVESTOR 4/24/08 $2,300 Merkley, Jeff (D)
MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK,NY 10022
BERNARD L. MADOFF INVEST.-SEC./CHAI 5/4/07 $25,000 Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte (D)
MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK,NY 10022
BERNARD L. MADOFF INVEST.-SEC./CHAI 9/12/08 $25,000 Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte (D)
MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK,NY 10021
BERNARD MADOFF INVESTMENT 7/20/07 $2,300 Lautenberg, Frank R (D)
MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK,NY 10021
BERNARD L. MADOFF INVESTMENT/CHAIRM 7/10/07 $2,300 Saul, Andrew Marshall (R)
MADOFF, BERNARD L
NEW YORK,NY 10021 BERNARD MADOFF INVESTMENT 7/20/07 $300 Lautenberg, Frank R (D)
And while there have been a scattering of contributions to obscure GOP candidates, over the years he has historically been a big giver to warhorse Democrat candidates like HRC, Gov. Corzine, Sen. Dodd, Charlie Rangel,, David Obey, Chuck Schumer, and always, big gifts to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Nothing to Obama? Maybe he doesn’t like schwartzes!
Still, is it any wonder then that the Obama administration accepted his plea deal without forcing him to turn over a single accomplice’s name? And I am not thinking about Ruthala and the kids. But the folks who could help him launder what some are now saying is a $65 BILLION swindle.
Where did the money go, Bernie? With only $50 Billion you can buy 5,000 $10 million penthouses, 500 private jets (at a cool $100 million per, not one of those cheapie Warren Buffet Net Jets!). He could have bought his wife and girlfriends 10,000 $5 million tiaras. Or he could buy half of GE, nearly all of JP Morgan Chase or buy up all the stock of Bank of America and still have a cool $13 Billion left over, enough to buy say 10% of Microsoft (at least at last week’s prices!).
Where did the money go?
Who really helped this man?
A shadowy Hungarian financier who aims to control the world currency markets?
Could it be Satan?
Keyser Söze?
Wanna bet we never find out?
“Pouf! It’s gone!”
(You can now follow me on Twitter: PeteKent01 – Guaranteed less than 140 characters!)
But it IS a (bleeping) game. It is. And every upper-, middle-, and even some lower-class folks played it. They all saw their neighbors making 10% returns each year in the market, and wanted to get in on it. No one asked questions. No one thought for themselves.
Yeah there's a bunch of scumbags out there, but there was a market for them to be scumbags because WE CREATED THE DEMAND for it.
The stock market is a little like a ponzi scheme. If you buy a stock with no dividends, you're buying a baseball card. A piece of paper. Which only has value because you think you can sell it to some sucker down the road for more than you paid for it.
@SLS: I also watch CNBC daily and have done so for years. I try to filter the information from the hype. But it's very difficult, since when the market is going up there is an obvious groupthink on this show.
I love it when they bring contrarians, or more soberheaded people, such as Roubini on. They ought to do it more.
I'm not asking for "balance" in the way that major news programs operationalize that term into a "he says-but he says" format without really looking for truth.
I would like to see much more skepticism, more investigation while b.s. is going on, and less collective editorializing and rooting for the market. I would like to see more fundamental analysis of the economy -- as opposed to the market -- but I realize that CNBC is 95% about the market and only the market and how to make money through investing.
I am happy for you that you pulled a lot of money out of the market in mid-2007. I didn't catch that signal then, or else my own greed and a gambling instinct kept me in while things were still OK, and then "boom!"
The interview was an absolute massacre. It should be interesting to see what effect, if any, it produces.
@Sarah:
people who use Stewart as their primary news source (even though he says he's not a news source) are foolish.
You are foolish for saying so. Have you ever seen Jon Stewart's pieces?
They are uniformly clips of people saying one thing, then saying the opposite. Or admitting they lied, or whatever.
He expresses his opinions when interviewing the people he is criticizing, and they have a chance to respond directly. I wish other commentators and pundits would; I don't see anybody out there telling people face to face they are crooks.
It is not foolish to watch two video clips that prove a liar lied, and accept it as truth, and for those that think these things can be taken out of context, Stewart is always able to show the context was exactly as portrayed. So far, he hasn't done that even once.
Also, Stewart is careful to pepper his opinion with disclaimers, unlike Cramer or any CNBC anchor out there. They pronounce with certainty and he prefaces his statements with "I'm no expert and no economist but as a layperson it seems to me..."
Cramer went on TDS to save his frikkin' job because Stewart is making him look like a fool and a con man, and rightly so. He went on to be contrite and try to get Jon to lay off before all his (Cramer's) credibility is lost, because with his credibility goes his job.
A few months ago, The Daily Show made a huge deal about having Bill O'Reilly as the guest. I prepared to a showdown and never got one.
What I'd been hoping for was something that would have looked a lot like last night's Cramer interview. I spent most of it with my jaw on the floor. And Stewart never let up.
To elaborate a bit on one of my comments above about CNBC: "I would like to see much more skepticism, more investigation while b.s. is going on, and less collective editorializing and rooting for the market. I would like to see more fundamental analysis of the economy -- as opposed to the market -- but I realize that CNBC is 95% about the market and only the market and how to make money through investing."
I would like to see more reasonable discussion of taxes on the show. They totally totally buy into the idea that the the only important way to stimulate the economy is to incentivize investment, and to reduce taxes especially on business and the "investor class." When their own (relative) in-house "liberal" (Steve Leisman) occasionally refers to issues of the median income level or income inequality, he is often virtually shouted down as if he's off-key or irrelevant.
This is one example where more discussion of economic trends could be instructive.
Another example would be to have far better coverage of how better regulation might work to improve things. That's almost a verboten topic on the show.
I like Stewart and I admire his willingness to speak frankly when seriousness is called for. But I wouldn't say he "destroyed" anyone. Let's not exaggerate his abilities. I think he almost hit the mark in what he said to Cramer. The key point, I think, is that CNBC has shown the same type of behavior that got people like Judith Miller in trouble over the Iraq war: they trade in journalistic skepticism for "access".
Cramer repeatedly pointed out that CNBC journalists were lied to, often on the air, by heads of financial companies. I have no doubt of that. The question that I wish Stewart had asked is what is the point of interviewing these people if they're just going to lie to you like that? What is your goal as a journalist: to make yourself and your network look cool by getting interviews with the big men of Wall Street, or to get accurate information for your viewers?
This problem is not at all limited to CNBC. I believe it's endemic to the entire American news industry. Journalists need to realize that access and accuracy are often incompatible goals.
@Mike:
[...]a stock with no dividends [...] only has value because you think you can sell it to some sucker down the road for more than you paid for it.
What a load of bullshit. A stock is a share in a company; and a company earning profits has some value. If the company is using its profits to expand its market and sell more product or service, they become more valuable. That is why the stock price goes up. It is not a Ponzi scheme, it is the realization of plans for profit.
Many large companies, such as Microsoft, Apple and Walmart, paid no dividends in their growth phase because they re-invested every dime they made in growth.
The only companies that should pay dividends are mature companies with few opportunities to invest and grow their profits.
It can take decades for a company to hit the wall on growth, meaning get to a point where they are selling all the product they can and further investment in growth will cost more than it produces in profit. Up until that point, by definition, returns exceed self-investment, and the best thing the company can do for shareholders is to re-invest all profits they earn in themselves.
That is also the tax-advantageous approach, because it converts profits into capital expenses, which allows the company to grow essentially tax free (legally). At something like a 30% tax rate on profits, this can significantly increase the rate of growth.
Any company that has significant growth potential and is paying dividends is not acting in the best interest of its shareholders. Those profits should have been spent on increasing their outlets, or automating their factory, or marketing, or hiring to increase capacity in some way or another.
Dividends should be distributed only when a corporation has excess profits and it makes no sense to invest in further growth. At that point, distribution starts to make sense.
SarahLawrenceScott said...
In fact, on September 11, 2001, I didn't turn to CNN or MSNBC or Fox. I watched CNBC.
Whatever else they've done, she's right about this. CNBC knocked it out of the park on September 11.
I haven't had a chance to watch the segment, but I will when I am at home for lunch.
The housing bubble that has now popped has been pretty evident for 3+ years. I "called" our current situation 3-1/2 years ago, when I saw people completely losing touch with economic fundamentals with the market derivatives and housing prices. In investing, there is no such thing as a "sure bet", and the mantra "if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is" applies VERY well to economics. Investors and the American public were just not following that. Networks such as CNBC helped to feed this insanity by hyping up the debate, and pumping up the bubble even more. Irresponsible journalism at its best.
And for everyone's note... The conservative GOP blowhard who sometimes posts on here as Jeff is *not* me. (that is why I changed my name here to Jeff S)
Sure Tony C., you're just an enlighted pursuer of the truth, critical of all comers, not a partisan bone in your body. "Open minded" is thy name. Spare me.
And the "shit" the working of which you liberals understand does not seem to include schools, banks, budgets, or other basics of government. Unless the teachers unions, government employees unions, UAW, ACORN etc. became agents of scientific analysis while I was not paying attention. I mistook them for interest groups - mere mortals like the rest of us.
Ebennet: Let me get this straight. I'm supposed to be embarrassed for relying on the Wall Street Journal amidst a bunch a folks who apparently consider Jon Stewart an "oppositional journalist". Sure.
Joel: the RCP average has him at 60, lower than Bush at a similar point, and slipping. The bigger worry for him is the terrible numbers on taxes, deficits, the stimulus, etc.
You know something, it's a statement about the quality of our 'news' programming on TV when the most trusted source for TV news among the under 35 demographic is a spoof news show on the comedy channel.
I especially liked the line where JS suggested that if CNBC would get back to doing to news objectively and without hyperbole, he could go back to being a comedian.
If the 'news' networks were doing their jobs, we wouldn't need to rely on JS to do the news. Sadly, he (and Colbert) are among the very few people left on TV that offer any in-depth analysis at all, albeit tongue-in-cheek.
I think Stewart deserves the Pulitzer Prize. If nothing else, it would make all those idiots at Faux News Channel choke.
To those that say CNBC foresaw this coming, that may be true. I, like one of the commenters defending the station, watch CNBC every morning.
However, CNBC is a cheerleader and nothing else. When they happen to stumble upon real stories, they are often passed over for fluff interviews with CEOs.
When I want the real news, I read the Economist and the WSJ. Both were unrelenting critics of the housing bubble, and foresaw this collapse years before it came. Unlike CNBC, they stayed on-point, hammering home what was about to happen, rather than cheerleading for Dow 15,000.
To those that say CNBC foresaw this coming, that may be true. I, like one of the commenters defending the station, watch CNBC every morning.
However, CNBC is a cheerleader and nothing else. When they happen to stumble upon real stories, they are often passed over for fluff interviews with CEOs.
When I want the real news, I read the Economist and the WSJ. Both were unrelenting critics of the housing bubble, and foresaw this collapse years before it came. Unlike CNBC, they stayed on-point, hammering home what was about to happen, rather than cheerleading for Dow 15,000.
> No one should ever dare to criticize Obama or they will be exposed to the full bore of ridicule.
LOL, then Jon Stewart is going to have to shoot himself for it. You missed a good one earlier in the week with the misspelled red button gag gift by Hillary Clinton (doh) immediately preceded by him making making fun of the musical guests the Whitehouse has had and returning a very thoughtful gift by Prime Minister Brown (pen carved from the wood of a British anti-slavery ship, to match the Oval Office desk that was carved out of the hull of another British ship) with "25 DVDs".
This Has Got to Hurt . . . . Obama's Poll Numbers Are Falling to Earth
From the WSJ: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123690358175013837.html
“It is simply wrong for commentators to continue to focus on President Barack Obama's high levels of popularity, and to conclude that these are indicative of high levels of public confidence in the work of his administration. Indeed, a detailed look at recent survey data shows that the opposite is most likely true. The American people are coming to express increasingly significant doubts about his initiatives, and most likely support a different agenda and different policies from those that the Obama administration has advanced.”
“A detailed examination of presidential popularity after 50 days on the job similarly demonstrates a substantial drop in presidential approval relative to other elected presidents in the 20th and 21st centuries. The reason for this decline most likely has to do with doubts about the administration's policies and their impact on peoples' lives.”
Imagine how popular he will be this Christmas. With unemployment at 10% and business not willing to risk getting its head blown off and staying hunkered down in their foxholes fearful of Obama’s policies and not willing to take flak for this administration.
For those who would attack the messengers (you know, naysayers like Jim Cramer, the Democratic investment adviser who dared to express doubt about President Obama, here is the background on the authors of the article:
“Mr. Schoen, formerly a pollster for President Bill Clinton, is the author of "Declaring Independence: The Beginning of the End of the Two Party System" (Random House, 2008). Mr. Rasmussen is president of Rasmussen Reports, an independent national polling company.”
(You can now follow me on Twitter: PeteKent01 – where yesterday in a sweet tweet I scooped this article!)
> When I want the real news, I read the Economist and the WSJ. Both were unrelenting critics of the housing bubble, and foresaw this collapse years before it came. Unlike CNBC, they stayed on-point, hammering home what was about to happen, rather than cheerleading for Dow 15,000.
Yes. Absolutely YES. This wasn't a huge surprise, it wasn't a surprise at all. The crunch time, Septemberish, was even expected. It was unknown how bad it was going to be (because bankers are dirty, rotten liars).
P.S. I feed sort of bad for Kramer landing in the middle of this. At least he had the guts to talk openly about what kind of manipulation DOES go on.
> It was unknown how bad it was going to be (because bankers are dirty, rotten liars).
I should say it was known that it COULD be this bad or worse (and it could have been worse if the government hadn't actively responded as much as it has). But when the full extent of the bullshiting wasn't yet known it's hard to extrapolate the exact outcome from that.
Jon Stewart is right, of course, and Cramer turned out far more decent than I expected.
Anyone who didn't know this drama was coming just wasn't paying attention. All of the warnings and signs were there, if you had the slightest bit of curiosity about how economics works. Everyone knew the banks were way overleveraged, that's how banks are allowed to function, by law. The extent of the CDS and derivatives markets came as a surprise (though no less than Warren Buffett warned us, almost no one did the research).
The only question was WHEN it would happen, and even those who knew it was coming couldn't predict with any certainty.
Remember how "old" Buffett looked when he didn't invest in any dot-coms? He turned out to be right. If the financial media looked as "old" as Buffett did, for as long as he did, in the face of the recent bubble, they'd go out of business.
The market may have been hysterical, but it was hysterical for a long time, and the hysteria started to seem normal enough that average people thought they were missing out by not getting in.
@JEFF:
You are an illiterate idiot. Read my post, asshole. I said I am a liberal. I said I am a partisan. I say now you are a dumbass.
Well, at least someone has the decency to call CNBC for the frauds that they are. I wonder how many lives they destroyed by misleading a big section of America.
Before Cramer spouts off "This is the greatest wealth destruction I've seen by a President." he should consider what he's done to people with his Bear, WaMu and other picks and missing the single worse crash since the great depression, causing a large majority of Americans to lose 40%+ to their life savings.
Millions of these people were set to retire in the next few years. Unfortunately for them, Wall Street has now gambled all their money away.
Talk about dropping the ball.
What's interesting about the Jon Stewart stuff that has been going on, people have been calling Cramer on these bad calls for a while but since it didn't have a big audience like The Daily Show, nobody was listening.
I guess it was just a matter of time.
Like any bubble, this credit bubble was based on an unsustainable assumptions. They were useful in the short term, but eventually outran their own headlights.
An argument can be made that capitalism is based on a similar mistake -- a longer cycle, to be sure, but unsustainable nonetheless.
Consider: capitalism is based on an assumption of continuous, consistent expansion. The components of this expansion are the availability of: workers (still reproducing), consumers (wavering), materials (some increasing, some decreasing), resources e.g. water, power (under threat, certainly), and improved efficiency of utilization of all of the above.
The endgame crash of capitalism hasn't happened (yet?). Do you know when to get out? Or do you just trust policymakers to make sure that the pain that trickles down to you is diffuse enough to feel like "stimulus"? Do you have a plan for the day they run out of stimulus?
I think the NYT got this about right this morning. Stewart came off like a pompous Senator who cares more about grandstanding and berating than about having a substantive dialogue about the issue.
I have to agree with SarahLawrenceScott, if you're watching The Daily Show for news, you're doing yourself a disservice. Just like the serious cable news shows, it has its own biases: It is skewed toward the humorous. I think JS and SC are funny, but most of the time they pass up nuance and complexity for caricature in order to make the comedy work. It makes for good comedy, but poor reporting.
I'm afraid television is a poor format for news, no matter who's doing it. The sqeezing of news stories into 2 or 3 minute segments precludes any in depth discussion or questioning of assumptions. Frontline on PBS is one exception. Or you can go to C-SPAN for the primary source itelf.
Statler mentioned how disturbing it is that the under 35 demographic relies on The Daily Show for news. I think this says less about the state of television news than it does about our own consumer preferences. News programs on CNBC or Fox or MSNBC condense their news reporting into bite-size segments because that's what consumers, especially the under 35 demographic, want. Our attention spans have been shot.
For news, I watch a lot of CSPAN and I read the NYT, WaPo, WSJ....I would never rely on cable TV for news.
smk,
No, that's not true. Our attention spans are fine, the reason why Faux News and CNBC do the flashy graphics and the sound bites is because that's what they think the under 35 set wants. It isn't, and I can prove this by pointing out that the Daily Show is more trusted by under 35s than Faux or CNBC and lacks the sound bites-Stewart goes on at length about issues. He uses graphics as a way of lampooning Faux and CNBC, a way of laughing at the stereotype of young people perpetrated by these channels.
I don't think JS came across as pompous at all. I think he attacked the issue head on.
Sorry Tony, a stock is only a share of a company in theory. No personal investors go to shareholders meetings, and none of them vote. If a stock doesn't give dividends, it's just a piece of paper you're hoping to sell to someone else.
What company has stopped growing? What companies have "few opportunities to invest and grow their profits"? Are you kidding? There's not a company in the world that thinks they're done growing.
You can argue that dividend dollars could have been better-spent investing in growth, and you're probably right, since people are sheep and will buy stocks purely because they think they can sell them for more. But once people realize that stocks are simply pieces of paper, I think we're going to start moving more towards a world in which dividends are used as an incentive to get people to invest in a company in the first place.
When I give someone my money, I want interest. Why would I buy shares of a company that's unwilling to pay me interest or dividends? For the sole reason that I think I can sell those shares to someone else for more.
"Statler mentioned how disturbing it is that the under 35 demographic relies on The Daily Show for news."
Why's that? Because he calls people out for being hypocrites? Did he wrongly accuse someone of something?
He targets both the administration and others. Difference is, this administration didn't act like cheerleaders encouraging investors and 401k holders into investing into a market while it was coming apart at the seams.
I'd argue the media needs John Stewart's. I honestly didn't start watching The Daily Show up until a couple months ago. He at least gives a funny perspective on how ridiculous people can be. Although last night and the rest of the spotlighting on CNBC was anything but funny. It's rather disturbing.
@smk2
Wow the NYT said Stewart was pompous? More proof that he hit a nerve with the MSM last night. What Stewart did last night was neither pompous nor ranting it was a tough but fair interview where he didn't let the person being interviewed get away with saying "It wasn't my responsibility." That was good, hard-hitting, well-researched journalism. Apparently the NYT et al have forgotten what that looks like.
Sorry Statler, but I don't see JS as doing more in depth news coverage than the cable news networks. Like I said, he shortens, caricatures, and distorts when it suits his interest: being funny. Which is fine entertainment, but it's not good news.
I was rooting for Colbert to get an Emmy, but this week's Daily Show takedown of Rick Sentelli, Kudlow, Cramer and CNBC just guaranteed Jon Stewart and his team another one, and rightly so. The Daily Show has more truth in a 5 minute segment than almost all the 24/7 of sensationalist bullshit that passes for news in America.
Sean, nice one embedding the unedited, uncensored version. As fantastic as the teevee version of this interview was, this version should be seen by everyone.
under 35 year olds get their news from a variety of sources, not just Stewart. i think it is the older liberal who gets their news from stewart, olberman and maddow.
i love coming here for many reasons, including the comments. i know everyone here thinks they are smart because they read this site by a smart guy-Nate Silver.
but really everyone, let's stop with grammar comments, comments telling everyone their degrees, IQ, even spelling.
none of those comments are addressing the argument.
almost makes me wish mule rider was back.
really smart people know that education is not the same as intelligence.
Texgator,
Cramer never said "It wasn't my responsibility." He took a share of the responsibility. That didn't stop JS from continuing to grandstand and berate. Good journalism would have involved exploring why CNBC's coverage was poor and how it might be made better. A diatribe does not good journalism make.
@Mike:
Sorry Mike, you are stupid. Companies get bought by other companies, and share holders make out like bandits. According to your idiotic theory, people that invested in Microsoft at 8 cents a share in 1987, and sold in 1992 for 250 times as much because the company was growing 38% a year, made a mistake.
It is possible to own a piece of something and benefit from it without controlling or directing it. The "interest" you get from owning a stock is an increased asset value of the company when they do their job and use profits to grow their assets and capacity. You have no idea what you are talking about.
Sean, your second sentence should say "had built," not "that built." I had to read it three times before I figured out what you were trying to say.
Tony C,
My, my. Genteel as always. The very model of scientific rationality applied to public debate.
As for Stewart, you all are missing the point. He nailed Cramer on his past financial advice. Agreed. But this does NOTHING to undermine Cramer's criticism of Obama's performance. Nothing. As a defense of Obama, this is a pure ad hominem fallacy.
Ok first things first, the Daily Show is at its best when it goes after the media (Which is actually what a lot of it is about, the big picture being that it is a satire about the pompousness of the news). Its also when Jon Stewart is at his best because he cuts through the cr*p of the news media better than anyone.
I thought that CNBC were very unwise taking Stewart on, and especially throwing Cramer to the wolf on this one. Cramer came off as very ineffective and weak. I couldn't quite decide if Cramer came off as just stupid or a crook. Certainly if Cramer has done good on his show, he didn't defend himself at all well.
By the way Scarborough is a douchebag, Stewart had that right. Never mind his political views, he comes across as very oily and smug.
But I have never seen why its bad that the Daily Show has become a reputed news source for a generation of Americans. Satire can be a very effective way of covering news, and The Daily Show does that well. Its more of a bad reflection on other news sources. But I don't necesarily see that as a problem, as they have to retain a level of seriousness and pomposity, whilst the Daily Show can cut straight to the nub of an issue. (Could CNN or Fox News for instance have done a story like the 'expose' of CNBC and other financial news organisations? I somehow doubt it).
The other reason I think that The Daily Show retains its popularity is because it doesn't talk down to its audience. I think that is something real news organisations could look at and learn from.
Jon Stewart's effortless takedown of BillO the Clown's bosom buddie, Bernard Goldberg and his book "100 People Who Are Screwing Up America"
PART 1
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=114995&title=Bernard-Goldberg-Pt.-1
PART 2
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=115447&title=Bernard-Goldberg-Pt.-2
What's black and white and all over?
The newsprint industry.
If NYT is lashing out at a comedian that bills himself as a comedian, who has a show on the comedy channel, and never claimed to be a journalist for being satirical-oh, heavens, what will we do, now that comedians are being satirical?-then this is just a symptom of the unease the NYT feels with the fact that more of us trust Jon Stewart than trust the NYT.
And they deserve it. The news media shilled for the Bush white house for eight years and never questioned the SOB once. Objectivity in TV news is gone, absolutely gone. I dare any of you to show me any degree of objectivity left on Faux News Channel or Wolf Blitzer or any of this crap that passes itself off as news.
We have entered the era of content-free news. There shouldn't be any splashy graphics or sound effects employed. The wacky camera angles do not hide the softballs your reporters throw at our elected officials, nor do the hyperbolic dramatics of Rick Santelli screaming at the camera.
Of the mainstream news media, I respect C-SPAN and the News Hour with Jim Lehrer (and the various spin offs of his show, including Gwen Ifill's Washington Week). I listen to Olberman and Stephanie Miller moreso for entertainment, and even then there are times when I'm listening to them and IO think, "You know, if we had the fairness doctrine, there wouldn't be any Rush Limbaugh or Steph Miller-and I'd be okay with that, I'd prefer it even."
Frankly, I don't own a TV and haven't since I've been on my own. Don't want one, either. I can watch TDS online and everything else I get via iTunes. That way I can use the scrolling wheel to skip past the spin and listen to what little content is left in the news media.
The Age of Objectivity, if indeed it ever existed-is dead.
JS is a comedian that is doing the job the news media ought to be doing, but isn't. He knows he's not a journalist, and maybe you journalists should be ashamed that eh has to do what he does. If he didn't, then there wouldn't be anyone at all presenting the news in an in depth and iconoclastic manner. Perhaps if you grew a pair and went after the news stories instead of repeating talking points handed to you by the RNC, JS wouldn't have to do what he does, and we wouldn't need him to.
"Statler mentioned how disturbing it is that the under 35 demographic relies on The Daily Show for news."
Why's that? Because he calls people out for being hypocrites? Did he wrongly accuse someone of something?
No. Because it's NOT a news show. He's NOT a reporter. He's a variety show, you know, like a "gonorrhea show". Exactly what he said in Crossfire, just comparing a news show to a comedy show to justify you are doing your works as a news show says there is a problem. :/ That maybe you aren't actually a real news show at all any more.
P.S. I find The Daily Show grating over time. Exactly because they are so superficial on many things. I'm not comfortable with how close they graze to "news show".
I think Sullivan said it best.
It's not enough any more, guys, to make fantastic errors and then to carry on authoritatively as if nothing just happened. You will be called on it. In some ways, the blogosphere is to MSM punditry what Stewart is to Cramer: an insistent and vulgar demand for some responsibility, some moral and ethical accountabilty for previous decisions and pronouncements.
Braver, please. And louder.
> Good journalism would have involved exploring why CNBC's coverage was poor and how it might be made better. A diatribe does not good journalism make.
No, no it doesn't. But WTF are we that we are expecting that from The Daily Show? WTF has gone so wrong?
@andrew:
capitalism is based on an assumption of continuous, consistent expansion.
No it isn't. Capitalism is based on the proven idea that through work, people can create more value than is required to sustain themselves.
The ability to be more productive than the break-even point is necessary for survival, because nature is uncertain and may create situations in which a lot of work is needed in a short amount of time in order to survive.
All animals have this excess capacity, most humans are intelligent enough to exploit it and create and stockpile value. It is why we are not hunter gatherers wandering the wilderness.
Capitalism is an outgrowth of the fact that 150 million people can generate a great deal of value, about $5 trillion dollars worth a year, give or take. It is not based on some Ponzi scheme of continuous growth, we don't have to get bigger, we don't have to have more people, it is not a zero sum game.
Companies survive for decades without growing at all. The car mechanic I use is self-employed and makes a good living, and has never had an employee in his life. I am happy to pay his invoices because he is always fair. He satisfies his customers, and I have never been dissatisfied in over twenty years. That is capitalism.
Every year, the work that people do creates new value. Capitalism is based on the fact that people can do that, it isn't just shifting money around.
Statler, this is something of a cop out:
"If NYT is lashing out at a comedian that bills himself as a comedian, who has a show on the comedy channel, and never claimed to be a journalist for being satirical-oh, heavens, what will we do, now that comedians are being satirical?-then this is just a symptom of the unease the NYT feels with the fact that more of us trust Jon Stewart than trust the NYT."
In the Cramer interview, JS was not being satirical. He was without a doubt wearing his serious journalist hat. If he's going to conduct an interview in a serious format, than that interview should be held to serious standards, he shouldn't be allowed to hide behind his comedian persona.
Great post Tony. I think the confusion about capitalism as a Ponzi scheme is due to linking capitalism at large with the particularly unreasonable expectations and the "greed is good" mantra. Those are not intractable concepts as long as you don't try to do some sort of "pure" capitalism, that you are willing to mix in some of these things that get labeled socialist.
smk,
No, JS doesn't have a serious journalist hat. You'd like him to have one so you could criticize him as a journalist for acting like a comedian. He is a comedian by trade-it's a fucking comedy show, do you get that? It makes no attempt at passing itself off as serious news.
What should disturb you is that I trust a comedian better than I trust the NYT. Is the comedian to blame? For what, for making social commentary? That's what comedians do, and even George Carlin would take pauses from his jokes to make serious points from time to time.
The blame lies with the NYT for being such gullible fucks as to reprint the White House talking points for the past eight years. That's why I don't trust them.
livemild,
Here, here. I say we join him, and all scream at once. Maybe we can drown out the sound effects from the 'news' media and all the shameless rhetoric of those actually claiming to be journalists while doing anything but journalism.
Somehow, it seems fitting that the man who would save America would be a professional comic.
> In the Cramer interview, JS was not being satirical. He was without a doubt wearing his serious journalist hat. If he's going to conduct an interview in a serious format, than that interview should be held to serious standards, he shouldn't be allowed to hide behind his comedian persona.
At most you could call that an Ed Op piece, especially when he goes off on a "I'm not a reporter rants" (I haven't seen it yet). That's what it really is, and to those standards it does meet IMO.
I know what you mean, I've been following it this week and I did get a sense at times he was getting really close to the line. Kramer got it because he stuck up, I really hope he takes this to heart and runs with it. Because I too think deep down he's got some spine, it's probably the reason he ended up in this.
But fuck, can somebody that is a real reporter do this? In a more intricate and in-depth manner. :/ Please.
P.S. Of course we know the forces that lead to this, it makes the job tough. Helen Thomas asked the tough questions and for her sins Bush gave her 3 years of cold shoulder.
David said...
I like Stewart and I admire his willingness to speak frankly when seriousness is called for. But I wouldn't say he "destroyed" anyone. Let's not exaggerate his abilities.
I think he did, and Cramer knew it. That's why last night's interview is not being mentioned on CNBC or Morning Joe.
I honestly expected Jon Stewart to take it easy on Cramer and the financial news channels, but instead he played more and more tape of Cramer undermining his credibility. At times, this was brutal to watch. I only wish it was the REAL prick of CNBC, Rick Sentelli, who is quite possibly the biggest pussy in America right now. At least Cramer had the courage to be grilled by Jon Stewart. Sentelli pussied out after agreeing to appear on the show. Also, disn't Sentelli lie about the White House threatening him? The guy is now an embarrassment to CNBC.
Statler, rewatch the Cramer interview. Do you not think JS wants his critique of Cramer and CNBC to be take seriously? Of course he does. Do you think the overwhelming objective was satire? Of course not. There were funny moments, but on the whole it was a serious interview.
More to the point, no one's editorializing is immune from critique just because it's delivered in a comedic format. Like you said, Carlin infused his comedy with political commentary, but I never once heard him claim that he shouldn't be held to account because he was "a comedian."
There was one moment in the Crossfire appearance I vividly remember when JS had contradicted himself and Paul Begala pointed it out. JS's only response was "I'm a comedian!"
If that's gonna be his claim then that's fine, but then he shouldn't ask people to take him seriously, which is exactly what he was doing on Crossfire and in this interview.
there is no right and wrong with what stewart did.
comedy has a right to talk about the press, the goverment, and anything else it wants to talk about.
if some think that stewart went over the top, that is a matter of opinion. after eight years of being mislead and often straight out lied to, stewart couldnt scream loud enough for me.
the NYT wouldnt know journalism if it hit them in the face.
statler-
i feel like i have been screaming for eight years!
i call my representatives and bitch. i call and email all the time all over the place. i look like that eduard munch painting. my guess is a group scream would just put more people on the bridge
and it would collapse
I'm pretty sure you misunderstand that part, I'm going to go back through it to go into specifics (if I can find again where I can watch it).
I tell you what, smk. You get those idiots at CNN and Faux to describe themselves as comedians and their shows as comedy shows and their channels as comedy channels, and i will give them the same breaks I give JS.
Jeff and BeanoCook, you're a couple of fuckwits. Nothing personal, just a general observation.
dwight-
"Helen Thomas asked the tough questions and for her sins Bush gave her 3 years of cold shoulder."
so what , reporters are supposed to be nice so they can play with the rich and powerful? you know a big part of what got us into this mess.
it wasnt Helen thomas who sinned, it was the rest of the press corps.
While we're at it, let's get the NYT, the NY post, the Washington Times and the Chicago Post to all come clean and describe their newspapers as comedy papers instead of journalistic papers.
If I see Wolf Blitzer stand up and say, "I am not a journalist. I am a comedian" along with Limbaugh, Hannity, Cooper, Hume, all the SOBs on the same stage, and everybody else that shilled for Bush for eight years, all of them stand up publicly and announce that they are, all of them, mere comedians and not journalists, then every single one of them gets off the hook.
Fox Comedy Channel. Cable Comedy Network. New York Jokes and Washington Punchlines. Let's see them admit to what they really are if they want to get the breaks a social commentarian claiming no journalistic expertise whatever gets.
Cone on, let's see you assholes step up to the plate and cop tot he fact that you are not journalists.
I'd just like to point out that for one of the smartest sites on the Web, it's probably got one of the dumbest comments sections. All trolls and the people who feed them.
smk22, when Jon Stewart says, "I'm a comedian," he isn't hiding behind that at all. He's isn't contradicting himself and he's not claiming that he's above scrutiny. He's *making* his point.
Imagine that you go to the police to report a serious crime. The police officer at the desk says, "If this is so serious, why don't you investigate it yourself?" The correct and reasonable answer is, "I'm not a police officer!"
When Jon Stewart says, "I'm a commedian," what he's really saying is, "You're not a comedian, stop pretending your standards on reporting should be at the same level as mine."
face it people our NEWS is NOT NEWS, it is ENTERTAINMENT. didnt cramer act nutty for a reason? He is an ENTERTAINER.
seen any coverage of anna nicole lately? Brittany?
i seriously wonder if some who post here actually WATCH the so called news.
I think people confuse when Stewart has a 'Serious Journalist' hat on from when he has a 'serious, concerned citizen' hat on. Why is he not entitled to ask questions as a concerned citizen? Seems to me that is what we should expect him to do. And when he is doing that he is just as entitled to hold people to acount. Sort of reminds me of when Letterman said to O'Reilly's face 'I don't know but I have an idea that about 65% of what you say is cr*p'. These aren't serious journalists, why should we hold them to a journalistic standard. But they are citizens and are just as entitled to an opinion as the rest of us.
To me the great thing about the daily show is Stewart doesn't ask anybody to take him seriously. He expects you to judge the questions and answers on their own merits; he isn't going to tell you what's a joke and what's serious.
I take him seriously because he asks questions I would like answered seriously, and he makes points I would like to seriously have made.
As for the debate over which "news" source has more credibility at this point, The Daily Show, or the corporate media, particularly the 24/7 cable news networks? BEHOLD:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=85992&title=blame-game
Now ask yourself, who came out looking better, the corporate media, or Jon Stewart and his team?
BTW, there's a shitload more where that came from. How about the invasiona and occupation of Iraq? Hurricane Katrina???
codeguy,
I mostly agree with you. But in the Crossfire appearance and now this interview, JS is implicitly asking viewers to take him as seriously as those he is critiquing. As long as that's the case, I don't have a problem with the NYT holding him to higher standards.
99% of the time I agree with your point that his being a comedian is exactly the point. It's just a couple of times that it feels to me more like a cop out.
smk,
He is not doing the Cramer bit and the crossfire attack as a journalist. He is just a guy. Why is it only journalists who can call people out for hypocrisy or idiocy? Why can't just some schmuck from New Jersey speak truth to power?
A couple of points:
On the day Santelli made news, Cramer was asked later if he agreed with Santelli and he said that he did not. He then said that because Santelli was a colleague he wasn't going to go further than that.
At first Santelli and the suits at CNBC thought they were onto something, but, being who they are, as soon as fire started being returned they stopped preening (and firing) and found the nearest hole. Cramer, for whatever reason, stepped in and took whatever of the fire he could onto himself. Will his wounds be fatal? Very unlikely. Will he be the recipient of metaphoric medals and a promotion. Somewhat less unlikely.
I think CNBC, which I didn't watch much between 2003 and 2008, is a shadow of what it was in 2001.
smk,
Bullshit.
SnW
@Jeff,
it's very difficult to take seriously a man who relies on polling data from Rasmussen, the most right-leaning polling organization out there. When you consider that virtually every single poll in the country OTHER THAN Rasmussen has Obama's approval rating lying between 63 and 73 per cent, it's very obvious where you LIE (every pun intended) in the course of this debate.
It's pretty obvious that you and the rest of the so-called "conservative" movement in this country (I bet William F. Buckley is indeed turning over in his grave right now) still can't come to grips with the fact that you've been out-witted, out-classed and overall "outed" by the political left - with help from true "centrists" - in the US political scene. Your time is OVER.
Either you and your kind can start contributing seriously to fixing the problems of our country, or get out of the way.
CNBC being taken down, good
A hedge fund trader being humiliated, great
Jim Cramer's career ending in a with a
Daily Show takedown and a coming SEC investigation - PRICELESS!!!!
"I think people confuse when Stewart has a 'Serious Journalist' hat on from when he has a 'serious, concerned citizen' hat on. Why is he not entitled to ask questions as a concerned citizen?"
Jon Stewart absolutely has the right to ask questions, like he did last night. The issue is that when he does that, he is no longer a comedian, but rather a pundit (not, I should note, a journalist). When he does that we should look at his statements critically. How many Daily-Show style clip hit-jobs could one prepare on Stewart?
There is also a structural issue. He castigates traditional newsmen for not doing real reporting. The criticism is valid, but he ignores his own role in that debate. Traditional "hard news" is being challenged by "soft news" (O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Olbermann, Stewart and Colbert). If people wanted boring old news, they would all watch Jim Lehrer.
What we need are critical viewing skills that are applied to soft news (of course people prefer Soft News precisely because they don't LIKE having to sort out stories themselves). We also need to be aware of the dilemma soft news creates for itself as a source of information.
1. It preferences entertaining information, or (in the case of Limbaugh and O'Reilly) hot-button culture war stuff.
2. The editorial slant of anchors gets reinforced by highly partisan audiences. This seriously inhibits the ability of hosts to effectively criticize "their side".
3. The format is not likely to exhibit back-and-forth debate and dialog between two sides (for an example of that see Stewart's debate with McCain on the surge, where McCain was repeatedly booed).
I have clicked off CNBC and now get my news from Bloomberg both on TV and satellite radio - much more knowledge and balance.
PorridgeGun,
You're a brutish assbag. Nothing personal. Just an observation.
"This problem is not at all limited to CNBC. I believe it's endemic to the entire American news industry. Journalists need to realize that access and accuracy are often incompatible goals."
I used to work at a weekly, free newspaper called the Whatcom Independent that chose to go for accuracy over access, in a way. We focused heavily on investigative journalism, and although we encouraged our journalists to develop good working relationships with our sources, we didn't pull any punches either. It was a pretty easy formula, actually. It was considered news if someone in public office was withholding information, and typically that was obvious when they were holding closed meetings when the law stipulated that those meetings should have been open. There were similar kinds of tells in the business world.
Anyway, we had the highest weekly readership in the county, and possibly even higher than the local daily (but only if you didn't believe their numbers). We ran for five years, the longest any free weekly has run in the county since the '50s. In almost all aspects we were a respected and successful newspaper and by all rights we should still be in business.
Our problem wasn't popularity or lack of material or respect. Our problem was lack of advertisers. A sort of one-two punch: most businesses were still sold on the daily, and the rest of them hated us for our honest reporting.
The daily, by the way, is about to go bankrupt. We quit a mere $1K in the hole (the owners wanted to retire, and no one would buy).
Anyway, the Indy is a model of news reporting I'd like to see arise again. But businesses sure don't like advertising in it for some reason.
There are a lot of good comments here about whether John Stewart is engaging in journalism or comedy. He does a little of both, but his real trade is neither one. Stewart does satire. It is every bit as serious as journalism, but it doesn't stand on its own---only in relation to other sources.
Stewart is full of great quips, and uses satire to and more knowledge of the situation than you find on CNBC.
Who cares what you call him, he was RIGHT last night.
hostertohoosier said what I was trying my best to say; I don't think it got posted.
This may have been a watershed moment in the history of TDS. If its ratings fall, it most certainly was.
The interview was a bit like a 3-act structure: the setup, the confrontation, and the resolution. In the unedited version, the setup was 5 minutes, the confrontation 16 minutes, and the resolution was a handshake at the very end. 5 seconds.
This episode likely irked many long-time viewers, many of them commenting here. No catharsis.
I hope the show-runners realize what just happened to their show.
LMAO!!! Who knew Jon Stewart ridiculed CNBC 5 years earlier??? This is one of the all-time great Daily Show clips:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=108185&title=Jack-Ass-Reporting
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=107863&title=Martha-Martha-Martha!
The Daily Show vs. Cable News
Terri Schiavo
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=124067&title=Headlines---Culture-of-Strife
Gay rights and adoption
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=117755&title=Fill-In-The-Blank
Death of the Pope
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=109840&title=Pope-Death
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=110150&title=Conservative-Pope
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=114006&title=Ratz!
The Michael Jackson Verdict
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=120716&title=Acquitted-O!---Pigeon-Gig
Deep Throat
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=113548&title=that-70s-source
Well crap, you called me names twice so that must mean it's true.
When did I say that Microsoft investors made a mistake? They weren't at the base of the pyramid if they sold in 1992, so good for them for getting in and getting out and selling to some sucker. The folks that made a mistake are the ones who've had money in the market during the past year. They're the ones at the bottom of the pyramid (scheme) now.
You can end up making money doing irrational things, but it's still irrational and that means it's risky and perhaps unwise. You sound like the kind of guy who thinks it was a smart move to bet on black in roulette because you won.
I am not denying JS's right to speak truth to power, and whether he's in a journalist role or concerned citizen role, he has every right to challenge whomever he likes.
But challenging someone or something in a public venue also entitles others to disagree with you. What bothers me is this attitude that the NYT has no right to question the substance of what JS says.
The right to free speech does not include the right to not be disagreed with or critized.
> On the day Santelli made news, Cramer was asked later if he agreed with Santelli and he said that he did not. He then said that because Santelli was a colleague he wasn't going to go further than that.
That's the bad part of this. Cramer became the face of this because he's not a total coward. :/ He showed up and faced the music, he spoke up. The worst of the rot didn't even show up ... which is the pattern.
@livemild
About Helen, thank you. That is what I was trying to get at.
smk,
that's a canard. The right of free speech in the 1st ammendment does not say that nobody can tell you to shut up. It says CONGRESS shall pass no laws restricting free speech.
I'M NOT CONGRESS.
So I can tell you to shut the fuck up.
Also, Nobody is saying the NYT is not allowed by law to criticize JS. They're saying that criticizing JS as if he were a journalist when he isn't is bullshit.
Statler,
Maybe you should read the NYT article, it did not critique JS as a journalist.
In fact, NOWHWERE in the Constitution or any of the Amendments will you find anything that says individual citizens not working in an official capacity for the US government can do or not do anything.
The Constitution and ALL of the Amendments define the role of government, not the citizens. They restrict government, not the citizens. If I tell you not to come into my home with a gun, that's not 'breaking' the 2nd Amendment- I'm not the government, and if you tried to take that before a judge you'd get laughed out of court.
When you misuse the Constitution like that, to make it seem like it's a body of laws restricting what individual citizens can do, you reveal your fundamental ignorance of the laws of this country, and how unqualified you are to bitch anyone out for suggesting that you are talking out of your ass when you post crap saying that it's perfectly acceptable for you to slam JS, and it is not acceptable for us to defend him.
smk,
Maybe you should read the bill of rights.
You're right smk,
It compared him to a senator. Is that more or less important than a "serious jounrnalist"?
What bothers me is this attitude that the NYT has no right to question the substance of what JS says.
I agree wholeheartedly with smk22. Jon Stewart entered his voice into the public fray and his opinions on the matter - right or wrong - are now subject to the same scrutiny that he is giving Santelli, Cramer, and CNBC.
Statler is playing with semantics, and it's grossly tiresome. It doesn't matter how they criticize Jon Stewart (i.e. as a comedian, a satirist, a journalist, etc.), he can and should have every bit as much scrutiny as anybody else would have if they opened their big mouth.
The real canard here - to steal from Mr. Waldorf - is the suggestion that Jon Stewart can open his big mouth and critique, analyze, mock, satirize, or whatever and get a free pass on anything he says because of [insert: excuse].
"How many Daily-Show style clip hit-jobs could one prepare on Stewart?"
If it's so easy, why aren't they out there? It's not particularly hard to splice together a few digital clips - especially when Comedy Central makes all the full episodes available for free online. If you think no one has taken advantage of this comedic opportunity, go for it. I suspect the reason there aren't so many of them is that Stewart doesn't tend to lie or contradict himself. Of course, that's also partly because he doesn't usually offer an opinion, rather being the counterposition.
Kings used to have jesters in their courts. Jon Stewart is a modern television jester; sure, you could attack and criticize him, and say that he's not doing a good job of being a pundit or a news reporter or whatever - but that's like criticizing the jester for not being a good king. He doesn't try to be, except in a mocking performance. He doesn't even claim to know how to be a good king; he just knows a bad king when he sees one, and makes sure to point that out for the amusement of everyone watching.
In fact, NOWHWERE in the Constitution or any of the Amendments will you find....
Ahhh, a true sign of someone who is desperate and grasping at straws to make their point. Being pedantic about the Constitution in an aimless and pointless ramble.
Kings used to have jesters in their courts...
We need more Shakespeare in schools! Or perhaps on TV...
Statler,
you said, "and how unqualified you are to bitch anyone out for suggesting that you are talking out of your ass when you post crap saying that it's perfectly acceptable for you to slam JS, and it is not acceptable for us to defend him."
I never suggested anything of the sort, and I wasn't making a constitutional argument. Did I ever say it was "unacceptable" for you to defend JS? Talk about a canard.
You said it is inappropriate for the NYT to critique JS, I think it's entirely appropriate. Please don't make my argument into something it's not.
...you are talking out of your ass when you post crap saying that it's perfectly acceptable for you to slam JS, and it is not acceptable for us to defend him.
That's a load of shit. You have every right to defend him. As the NYT, or anyone else, has the right to slam him. Quit changing the goal post here.
Nobody argued you couldn't defend Jon Stewart.
Let me also summarize the NYT article since no one wants to actually read it.
The author critiques JS as a satirist, not as a journalist, and makes the point that it was painful to watch him stop being funny and turn serious. The author compares him to a Senator grilling someone testifying at a hearing.
The article also goes on to say that JS is substantively correct and got the upper hand of the back and forth with Cramer.
> How many Daily-Show style clip hit-jobs could one prepare on Stewart?
Without duplicating the ones they take at themselves? Yeah, they poke fun at themselves. And they poke fun at Obama. It's the show's one redeeming quality. They don't try to maintain the airs that they aren't first and foremost an entertainment show.
P.S. If Rush took himself a lot less seriously, acknowledged what Steele had the nerve to say out loud, that Rush is an entertainer, I wouldn't think so lowly of Rush.
How manipulated we have become when the critique of the critics becomes the story rather than the criticisms they raised.
Who is behind all this?
When Limbaugh, Santelli and Cramer become the story rather than the policies of the Obama administration that prompted them to speak up then we all lose.
Obama does not want us looking too deeply at what he is doing and so he sets in motion these phony news stories to dominate the cycle so we don't bother to look at the bona fides of his budget or energy and education plans.
The torrent of abuse unleashed on relative nobodies like Santelli and Cramer is astounding. Only 250,000 people watch CNBC on any given day. (Rush is another story).
This is intended to have a chilling effect on debate and to distract us from the giant sea change in our economic and social life that Obama is trying to implement.
Bamboozled indeed!
The only saving grace is that the people are not as dumb as Obama seems to think they are and despite his straw men and boogey men his poll numbers are falling because the people don't like what he is doing.
(You can now follow me on Twitter: PeteKent01 – 140 chars max!)
SMK-
It's entirely appropriate for the NYT to critizie Jon Stewart as a commedian. They got it dead on when they said it was uncomfortable to watch a commedian not be funny. It's inappropriate for the NYT to compare him to a senator. He doesn't have nearly the heft to compel someone to appear before him, nor can he do anything about it afterwards. In making such a comparison, that NYT article went off the tracks.
(You can now follow me on Twitter: PeteKent01 – 140 chars max!)
I wonder how that would work? Multiple tweets per post?
smk,
Actually, you did.
But challenging someone or something in a public venue also entitles others to disagree with you. What bothers me is this attitude that the NYT has no right to question the substance of what JS says.
The right to free speech does not include the right to not be disagreed with or critized.
So now, not only are you trying to claim that anyone who disagrees with you is 'breaking' the First Amendment, you're a fucking liar for denying it.
Mason,
I disagree. You can argue that the interview felt like Hill testimony without holding JS to any different standard. I find Senators berating people annoying for some of the same reasons I found JS annoying in this interview. Doesn't mean I'm placing them on level footing
Pete-
This is not a poltical post, I am still trying to figure out why you care. Please STFU, you are getting really nonsensical.
It's entirely appropriate for the New York Times to criticize Jon Stewart however they feel it is best to criticize him. Period.
Let the public judge the merits of the critique. For the party who is anti- most any form of censorship, it's grossly hypocritical and asinine to be arguing the "appropriateness" of how a publication such as the NYT can criticize a public figure like Jon Stewart. It's sickening, actually.
Man up and quit being hypocrites and soft-skinned little bitches!
What bothers me is that you can tolerate criticism of Stewart- and you cannot tolerate criticism of the NYT for having done so.
Isn't it my right to say that what the NYT wrote was a pile of steaming dogshit?
I'm not calling for Congress to pass a law restricting the NYT's ability to critique JS. Why the fuck are you saying it's a violation of the First Amendment (which no individual citizen could do, anyway) for me to critique the NYT?
What, anyone that agrees with you can say what they want, but people who disagree with you can't?
Statler,
I think you need to reread that post a little more slowly. How do you interpret my statement:
"challenging someone or something in a public venue also entitles others to disagree with you"
as
"you trying to claim that anyone who disagrees with you is 'breaking' the First Amendment"
You gotta help me here. I'm not sure how you got from A to B. Maybe you didn't get my original point: Because JS offers his opinion in a public forum, others have the right to disgree with him.
The right to free speech does not include the right to not be disagreed with or critized.
That's the part I'm referring to.
Come on, smk. Let,s here you say it-you're a liar. Cop to it.
Gzero2k3:
You are wrong as well as rude. Newsweek (I don't suppose you think of them as "right wing") has Obama at 58. And the Real Clear Politics average is considered the gold standard for polling trends: the have Obama at 60. Repeat, 60.
Rasmussen may shade right on issue polls (where there is always tricky wording), but other polls are often thought to shade left. And Rasmussen, according to Silver himself, is excellent on electoral and popularity polling.
But it's nice to see yet another lefty grieving for the memory of William F. Buckley. Good grief. Yes, I'm sure he'd be right there with you behind Obama's banner. Sorry, you're not getting brains, style, and class that cheaply.
SMK-
It's your right to feel that way, of course, but you're ignoring key differences between TDS and the Senate Banking Comm. Jon Stewart isn't going to go back to his office and have his writers draft legislation to go after the guest that just voluntarily appeared on his show. A senator can do, and often does, just that after grilling someone who was "requested" to appear before their panel. Context, sir.
Summary of the Hypocrisy of the Far Left apologists:
Oh no! You can't criticize Jon Stewart as anything but a comedian/satirist. He's only a Comedy Central poser and shouldn't be treated as a real journalist when he speaks his mind or makes public comments. That's inappropriate!
Look at Rush Limbaugh, that fat slob. Even though he's just a conservative AM talk show entertainer, he should be treated as the leader of the Republican Party or like an elected official and criticized accordingly. It's entirely appropriate because we don't like what comes out of his big mouth!
Fred is very naive in thinking that this is not a political post. This is all about politics and the left trying to silence anyone who would dare criticize Obama.
My point concerning the "dietrologia" of the dust up between Cramer and Stewart is as valid as anyone's so why try and silence me?
"The right to free speech does not include the right to not be disagreed with or critized."
What is your problem with that statement? Does it sound better in the inverse for you?
"Others have the right to disagree or criticize one's public speech."
Maybe you were reading to quickly and skipped the second "not."
The right to free speech does not include the right to NOT be disagreed with or critized.
For any of you whose head that traveled over, if Jon Stewart gets to hide behind the comedian/satirist cover, then Rush Limbaugh gets to hide behind the AM talk show host cover. I'm no fan of Rush, but I see little or no difference between where he is compared to Jon Stewart in the whole rank-and-file political structure.
They're both opinionated blowhards from both sides of the political spectrum who each have a media outlet - cable TV and AM radio. One's a "satirist" and the other an "agitator." Either way, if you have to treat one a certain way - i.e. not take them seriously - you have to treat them all the same way.
Period.
Oh no! You can't criticize Jon Stewart as anything but a comedian/satirist. He's only a Comedy Central poser and shouldn't be treated as a real journalist when he speaks his mind or makes public comments. That's inappropriate!
Look at Rush Limbaugh, that fat slob. Even though he's just a conservative AM talk show entertainer, he should be treated as the leader of the Republican Party or like an elected official and criticized accordingly. It's entirely appropriate because we don't like what comes out of his big mouth!
Didn't Michael Steele have to apologize for calling Rush "an entertainer"? Does anyone else remember that?
The GOP is the party of—
♦ Rush Limbaugh
♦ Monica Crowley
♦ Michael “Waffles, Anyone?” Steele
♦ Newt Gingrich
♦ Sarah Palin
♦ Bobby “Not-Ready-For-Primetime” Jindal
♦ Mitch McConnell
♦ John Boehner
♦ Sean Hannity
♦ George Will
♦ George H. W. Bush
♦ George W. Bush
♦ Dick Cheney
♦ Pat Buchanan
♦ Rudy Giuliani
♦ Mitt Romney
♦ Mike Huckabee
I’m sure I left some luminaries out, but you get the drift. Now the question is—which one of the above could be elected to national office today? Free waffles to anyone who gets the answer—which is “none”—right.
Statler,
Maybe next time, before you go off on a rant calling someone a liar and telling them to STFU, you might make sure you've read and understand what they've posted.
SA,
You're in danger of becoming an astute voice opposition and critique, but to be a little blithe to illustrate a rather cogent point:
John Stewart is an authority who admits that he's an entertainer.
Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer who claims that he's an authority.
It's all in the delivery. Take any serious monologue from each of them and have an English104 class analyze them. Stewart will almost always come out as more credible and rhetorically sound.
It ain't the Far Left that's coming across as hypocritical in your book, it's anyone with more than half a brain.
John Stewart is an authority who admits that he's an entertainer.
Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer who claims that he's an authority.
Very good point, Jonathan. And that's why I don't like Rush. He definitely comes across as the bigger "authority" (read: ass).
He was just the closest thing I could come up with to put it into a little perspective. Maybe a Sean Hannity would work a little better as he's a few notches down the ladder, but again, he still presents himself as an ideolgocial know-it-all.
Apparently, Doucheborough and Meek-ah discussed EVERYTHING this morning. Everything apart from Cramer's Daily Show appearnce last night, after a week of cheering Cramer on and criticizing Jon Stewart and his show.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/13/after-cheering-on-cramer_n_174615.html
Those two sorry excuses for hosts are catching up on the retards over at Fox & Friends.
Jonathan,
You said,
"John Stewart is an authority who admits that he's an entertainer.
Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer who claims that he's an authority."
I'm not sure it's quite that simple. I think each is an authority to some and an entertainer to others.
Also, re the quality of thier monologues, I agree with almost nothing Rush says, but I have noticed that his grammar is quite sound and he's pretty adept at crafting an argument, I would think moreso than JS.
Sean Hannity screams. I just can't deal with that.
I think each is an authority to some and an entertainer to others.
Very good point by smk too. People upthread were even mentioning how much of the <35 crowd does in fact take Stewart seriously and how sad that is that so many people don't (or feel they can't) rely on traditional media sources. Of course, some of that may be an indictment on the quality of traditional media sources, while the rest of it might be an indictment on the laziness of people to be curious and more investigative on their own.
smk,
Oh, it's definitely not as simple as I put it. But in a way it is.
I wasn't talking about their grammar. That's why I wrote "English104." It's the method of their rhetoric and the stances they take.
As stated earlier, Stewart tends to come from a humble position, and even though he speaks with conviction he still almost always asks if he's seeing things right. He couches most of what he has to say in questions. And he very rarely makes a statement or conclusion, which means that when he does it has that much more punch to it. And again, he keeps reminding us who he claims to be, a comedian and not a journalist.
Limbaugh, on the other hand, does pretty much the opposite. And yes, that appeals to a lot of people, and a lot of people do see him as an authority. But according to the guidelines set down by my English proffs, he's in a weaker position. It's easier to make fun of him.
As I said, I was being blithe to illustrate a more serious point.
My final thought and I'm done with this topic: if it's all fun and satire to Jon Stewart, why even comment on politics?
He's still trying to make some point, isn't he? Even in jest? His points, veiled as they may be by the curtain of humor, are still points.
You can't hide behind a wry smile and expect that to CYA.
> I'm not sure it's quite that simple. I think each is an authority to some and an entertainer to others.
It is that simple till Rush stops trying to live the lie.
The parts of Sean Hannity I've seen, well heard actually on XM, makes him really little different. O'Reily and Coulter too, although admittedly I've had very little exposure to Coulter. Didn't McCain's daughter just call out Ann Coulter?
If I'd have to guess why there is an unwillingness to come clean on these people part is because their audience isn't willing to look at and laugh? At themselves? I get this sense of hyperseriousness, that what is being played to is complete self-righteousness of the audience?
Jon is quite self-deprecating at times and towards his audience too, willing to look at and call out their follies and make jokes about it.
In fact, I'd say that Stewart's slightly lower standard of grammar and his more common colloquialisms tend to put him on more sympathetic ground than Limbaugh's Rushism do for him.
That, of course, is my opinion, but I suspect a lot of people share it.
@Dwight:
Thanks, Dwight. I believe what Republicans label "socialism" must exist side by side with capitalism (the ability to pursue self-interest and make more money than your neighbor by working harder, or inventing, or using rare skills, etc.).
I think government plays four critical roles; one is to protect citizens from crime and coercion; the reason for the police, courts that enforce contracts, and anti-trust legislation.
Two is to perform the functions of society that we do not want done at a profit for various reasons; such as licensing professionals and inspecting food, drugs, buildings and consumer products for safety. I include in this education and health care. I also include infrastructure, garbage collection, sewer maintenance, electricity and water processing, etc. When things are done for a profit there is constant pressure to cut corners; removing the profit motive, so you don't have to do 10% better every year, reduces the incentive to cut corners. The problem with education is that if profiteers are shorting you, you won't know it until it is too late. The problem with health care is that your life is usually on the line, and shopping or negotiation is not an option, so patients are uniformly gouged beyond belief.
The third function of government is to invest in long term, risky research. Businesses and people seldom invest in something with undefined and iffy returns twenty years from now, which they might not share in. It is government's job to fund fundamental research, 95% of which may be wasted money, to gain the 5% wins that let us advance. In today's environment, think of energy research.
Fourth, I think it is the job of government to put a floor on poverty, for the young, disabled, and old. I'd rather this be done by government and paid staffers, promoting no political or religious or moral agenda. Unemployment insurance is part of that, so are food stamps and government housing.
Taken together, I'd guess I believe in a 50/50 system; 50% of income to taxes and 50% to the individual. People can still be millionaires and billionaires, big variances in income levels do not worry me, as long as the rich come by it honestly by producing value. As far as I am concerned, Brad Pitt or Julia Roberts or Warren Buffett have earned every penny.
I'm not sure it's quite that simple. I think each is an authority to some and an entertainer to others.
You're missing the point slightly. When Jonathan says what he said, the important part is not the first part of each sentence. What each man is, or is perceived to be is, while not irrelevant, less important than how they view themselves. The critical difference between JS and RL is that JS admits he is and entertainer and doesn't object when some one calls him such (See the comparison of "Variety Show" to STIs), whereas RL has his listeners convince Michael Steele to issue a retraction when he calls RL the same.
My final thought and I'm done with this topic: if it's all fun and satire to Jon Stewart, why even comment on politics?
It makes him, and those in his circle (I'm looking at you Dr. Stephen T. Colbert, DFA) money.
He's still trying to make some point, isn't he? Even in jest? His points, veiled as they may be by the curtain of humor, are still points.
You can't hide behind a wry smile and expect that to CYA.
No one ever hung the Bard's Fools for thier mockery. There was no point in it. He was never the root cause of the issues of the day.
@People drawing comparison with Jon Stewart and Limbaugh and Hannity. Try again.
If anything, Bill Maher is a more accurate comparison to make. Maher is waaaaay more partisan than Jon Stewart. That's why most politicans and pundits refuse to go on Real Time, and almost everone (apart from Rick "Biggest Pussy In America" Sentelli) have, and continue to go on The Daily Show.
BTW, Bill Maher, for the most part, does consider himself a know-it-all.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=186755&title=bill-maher-pt.-1
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=186756&title=bill-maher-pt.-2
@BeanoCook
John Stewart said "There are literally shows called Fast Money". He did say Cramer's show was Fast Money.
No one ever hung the Bard's Fools for thier mockery. There was no point in it. He was never the root cause of the issues of the day.
Yes, but the goal post is shifting again. Nobody is laying the "root cause" of these issues at Stewarts feet. Nobody is trying to "hang" him, proverbially or otherwise. You all are coming to JS's defense from the standpoint of "You can't blame the jester for the king's troubles."
And you're right. But we're not blaming him. The argument is that if he opens his mouth, people have the right to tell him he's annoying and to STFU. His satirist credentials can't hide him from criticism. Much like if the jester had a poor act and did/said something people didn't like, they didn't make him a scapegoat for the kingdom's social, economic, or military troubles, but they still had the right to mock, humiliate, and boo him, as well as throw vegetables at him or whatever if they didn't like his act.
That's a different argument. All we're saying is that Stewart opens himself up to ridicule - and ridicule as a person, not hiding behind the smokescreen of comedian/satirist - not blame.
@ Jeff,
It's interesting that you used the polling data from RCP; the latest numbers are the latest polling data from 5 organizations, missing are polling data from WSJ, AP, and network TV polls from ABC, CBS and NBC, who often conduct or combine their polls together with the WSJ, NYT or Washington Post. In any case, Rasmussen and Newsweek have pretty much always polled lower for Obama, so you have yet to show me where I was wrong in my assessment of your post, other than in the exact numbers I stated.
By your own admission, Rasmussen is more right of the political spectrum, so I proudly stand by what I said about what you wrote; I can't take seriously a man who quotes a right-leaning poll in his criticism about a left-leaning president.
As far as me being "rude"; maybe it's about time you do what conservatives have been advising liberals to do for years now and grow a spine. You guys can surely dish it out, but seem to have a very hard time with taking it...
@ texgator
Wow the NYT said Stewart was pompous?
No,the Times never said that Stewart was pompous.Smk22 said the Times said that.Not true.
Alessandra Stanley,one of the Times' TV critics,is obviously no fan of Jon Stewart.And I'm no fan of hers.I've thought for years that Stanley and her fellow critic Virginia Heffernan were terrible,second rate critics,way below the caliber of the other arts critics of the Times.Stanley should have been dumped years ago.
SA-
No one (well, maybe SNW) is saying that you can't critique his comments as a self-proclaimed non-expert angry citizen. What I am saying is that you can't critique him in the context of a jounrnalist, or worse, as the NYT did, as a Senator. That was just silly. He's not a journalist. He's not a Senator. He's just a guy from New Jersey who watches and reads a ton of news and finds much of it so lacking in integirty or content that it's laughable.
Someone upthread posted a link to JibJab's "It's what we call the news". That animated short taps into the same vein that TDS does: That the news has become absurd to the point of being dangerous.
Check out this study from East Carolina University (2006). No matter what we think of J.S. (jester, social critic, newsman) his work seems to have an impact on the electorate.
American Politics Research, Vol. 34, No. 3, 341-367 (2006)
DOI: 10.1177/1532673X05280074
The Daily Show Effect
Candidate Evaluations, Efficacy, and American Youth
Jody Baumgartner
Jonathan S. Morris
East Carolina University
We test the effects of a popular televised source of political humor for young Americans: The Daily Show With Jon Stewart. We find that participants exposed to jokes about George W. Bush and John Kerry on The Daily Show tended to rate both candidates more negatively, even when controlling for partisanship and other demographic variables. Moreover, we find that viewers exhibit more cynicism toward the electoral system and the news media at large. Despite these negative reactions, viewers of The Daily Show reported increased confidence in their ability to understand the complicated world of politics. Our findings are significant in the burgeoning field of research on the effects of "soft news" on the American public. Although research indicates that soft news contributes to democratic citizenship in America by reaching out to the inattentive public, our findings indicate that The Daily Show may have more detrimental effects, driving down support for political institutions and leaders among those already inclined toward nonparticipation.
Oh... And SA-
You might just ask yourself what the point of critiquing what a self-proclaimed non-expert citizen has to say is anyway? You're free to do so of course, but it's howling at the moon, really.
Of course you can ridicule The Daily Show and Stewart all you want, and anyone trying to deny that needs to grow up. But comedians in general are not giving you details. What makes things funny is that they are an exaggeration of current problems and are presented as such. To criticize his lack of detail in a joke is just silly. Of course it wasn't exact. If it were it wouldn't be funny.
Of course, in this interview Jon Stewart was not a comedian at all - he was not trying to be funny. He was trying to discredit CNBC (and he did so effectively). He also had an opportunity to move the dialog to "So what do you want Cramer to do about it?", which he opted not to do, and for that I found the interview lacking and revealing of one of Stewart's flaws: he isn't good at letting things go. (Few comedians are...) But that doesn't make him less funny... Stick to the jokes, Jon.
Am I the only one who gained some respect for Jim Cramer after that interview? That's assuming he does what he was claiming he wanted to do, of course, but I'm definitely inclined to give him a chance now.
@Smokin':
Sorry to butt in on this, but so what? Everybody that opens their mouth in public opens themselves up to ridicule; what is your point in making this point?
It is like saying it is okay for people to not like George Clooney. Who ever claimed everybody had to like George Clooney?
Or that criticizing Stewart was off-limits? I think you lost the thread; I believe the question was whether it is a false charge to say Stewart's interview was "bad journalism."
In my opinion that is a bogus charge because it wasn't journalism, no matter how serious it sounded. He wasn't "reporting" anything, he picked a verbal fight with a network and a financial pundit that has been both comically wrong and simultaneously self-congratulatory for years on end.
He outed them. It stung and they tried to dismiss him, so he outed them again. This isn't journalism, it is a pissing contest, and CNBC made a mistake in taking him on; because guess what? There was plenty of material for twenty professional comedy writers to make them look like incompetent buffoons; the Daily Show writers can do this all... day... long, for a month.
This is why Cramer was contrite and hardly defended himself at all. It was surrender, because CNBC recognized their error and wanted it to be over, before it damaged their credibility, and hence their ratings, and hence their sales of commercial air time.
I watched every one of these shows, and I don't think Stewart was engaging in journalism at all. He was highlighting CNBC hypocrisy and incompetence because it was such ridiculously, blatantly wrong advice from supposed "experts" it was just funny. He was pissing on them, not reporting anything. They tried to piss back, and got outgunned.
So it is a false charge to judge this as journalism in any way (in my opinion).
Am I the only one who gained some respect for Jim Cramer after that interview? That's assuming he does what he was claiming he wanted to do, of course, but I'm definitely inclined to give him a chance now.
No, you're not alone in that. I give Jim Cramer "big ups" for going in and doing the show. He could have pussed out Santelli but he went in and took his lumps. We'll see how he does going forward.
Tony makes a good point SA. What we saw last night wasn't reporting. It was the final salvo in a flame war.
> No, you're not alone in that. I give Jim Cramer "big ups" for going in and doing the show. He could have pussed out Santelli but he went in and took his lumps. We'll see how he does going forward.
I give him props for it too. I think there is at least a reasonable chance for him to follow through for the same reason I had respect for him yesterday before he showed up on The Daily Show. That interview back in 2007 where he talks frankly about stock manipulation. Many people cut him for the prior deed but I appreciate that it took serious whistle blowing chutzpah to put himself out there and put that on tape.
The bet against might just be Cramer's bosses. We shall see.
...whether it is a false charge to say Stewart's interview was "bad journalism."
You know, and I'll try not to be too much of a smart-ass, but given how much the topic point was "shifted" - by both sides - it would take a serious investigation to see what the original debate was and how it was framed. Given how some people moved the goal post around to suit there needs, and I felt like addressing each new twist on the debate and how it was framed was like chasing a rabbit through the thicket, I hardly feel like I "lost the thread."
If anything I could say your disgruntlement over how the NYT portrayed the showdown and how they framed JS - comedian?, satirist?, Senator?, pundit?, ordinary citizen? - is also pissing in the wind and an exercise in futility.
If you don't like what they say, and how they say it (or think it's inappropriate), then don't read their shit. But they said nothing out of line. That was my only point. They said nothing out of line and were within their right to do what they did.
Was it sloppy or bad journalism? Maybe. But that's left up to individuals' opinions. Let the reader decide. And let the opinions on both sides be heard. Free speech - you can't beat it.
@fairminded
That can be problematic. I wouldn't want to see the landscape populated solely by The Daily Shows. That would be bad. But to reign in comedians, to keep them sticking to talking about their friend's toupees and fascist soup severs? That doesn't sound like a good idea either.
It is debatable what that drop means and what it can lead to.
If anything I could say your disgruntlement over how the NYT portrayed the showdown and how they framed JS - comedian?, satirist?, Senator?, pundit?, ordinary citizen? - is also pissing in the wind and an exercise in futility.
Only outside the context of their jounalist duty. Inside that context, they're fair game.
Was it sloppy or bad journalism? Maybe. But that's left up to individuals' opinions. Let the reader decide. And let the opinions on both sides be heard. Free speech - you can't beat it.
I did. It was. YMMV.
To elaborate on my previous post:
The Times DID NOT criticize Jon Stewart.One of their TV critics did.Big difference.
When William Kristal,before being dumped by the Times,criticized Obamaa in his moronic columns,was it accurate to say "The Times criticized Obama"? Of course not.The same logic applies to Alessandra Stanley's opinions.
> but given how much the topic point was "shifted"
Perhaps you might consider it is your understanding of where the goal posts are that has shifted, rather than the actual goalposts shifting?
To talk to myself over here in the corner, quoting my own post:
I wouldn't want to see the landscape populated solely by The Daily Shows.
In some ways I think Jon's saying "back the f**k out of my entertainment territory, you don't belong here" so that we don't end up with a landscape dominated by pseudo-news [without it being explicitly, up-in-peoples-grill so].
As Opus points, out the NYT piece was by a TV critic, so perhaps a little bit of slack should be cut. She probably didn't realize how silly she sounded comparing a funnyman to a senator. I blame the TV. It rotted out her brain.
One thing I've never really liked about T.V. and movie critics is the language they tend to use. They often strip their opinions of qualifying statements.
For instance, rather than saying, "That movie struck me as very bad," they will instead go for the phrasing, "that was a very bad movie." To me, it's as if their opinions become immutable fact through the magic of their keyboards.
And it appears to me that their editors let them do it.
*looks at Rush Limbaugh and company*
> For instance, rather than saying, "That movie struck me as very bad," they will instead go for the phrasing, "that was a very bad movie." To me, it's as if their opinions become immutable fact through the magic of their keyboards.
There is another reason for this for the writers that aren't big personalities. It keeps their works as a commodity, to encourage the idea that it was the NYT that panned The Daily Show to use the example above, so that these writers are more replaceable.
I did. It was. YMMV.
Thanks for your opinion, which, as you like to say, amounts to howling at the moon.
Mine? Which isn't worth a shit either.
It didn't. It wasn't. And that's just my opinion. This hardly reads as a blip on the radar of even remotely important things to discuss, so while I'd say let's leave it to the masses to decide, I think they could frankly care less about Cramer(/Santelli/CNBC) v. Stewart, the NYT's critique, and the turd-knockers on here critiquing the critique. It's a little ridiculous when you step back and look at the many layers of pedantic bullshit piled on top of one another.
Perhaps you might consider it is your understanding of where the goal posts are that has shifted, rather than the actual goalposts shifting?
I'm pretty sure that once smk and SnW started their fiery battle over the merits of the 1st amendment and other interpretations of the Constitution, the framework for debate was getting pretty distorted. Any reasonable person who re-read this thread top to bottom would see it's all over the place with each person slanting and tilting the argument a little bit to make their point.
No one ever provided clear or concise evidence where I was way off topic, so I'm left to assume I had at least a decent grasp of the subject matter.
"In some ways I think Jon's saying "back the f**k out of my entertainment territory, you don't belong here" so that we don't end up with a landscape dominated by pseudo-news [without it being explicitly, up-in-peoples-grill so]."
I think the problem is that people PREFER pseudo-news. So long as there is a Jon Stewart, or a Rush Limbaugh, or a Keith Olbermann - who is left to watch Jim Lehrer?
As I see it, we are STUCK with pseudo-news. How do we as politically literate media consumers deal with that? What kinds of institutions (and I'm not talking about government institutions here) are necessary for soft news to produce an informed, reasonable public?
I could see something like an expanded Politico playback that got soft news hosts to really engage and critique each other. It could give short attention span viewers something to watch that was both entertaining and balanced... and it would help justify Alison Starling's salary (why Politico needs her to say "good Friday morning" is beyond me... though I do like her smirky smile).
That word phantasmagorical you (Cramer) use... I do not think it means what you think it means.
G'day!
As an admirer of The Daily Show from afar (Austalia), it has been so refreshing to see hard-hitting, satirical lampooning of people in power, who deserve what they get, albeit in a comedy show (with an edge). It's unmissable. The show is extremely well written and presented. [How we wish we had something like this in Oz]
Cramer lost pretty much all rounds and barely had 2 good moments (rebutting the commissions allegation, and reminding us the bear run was 18 years long). But overall Stewart hit the targets he wanted to make powerfully (with some justifiable anger), gave Cramer the chance to talk but the latter seemed meek and too eager to play the "likeable schoolyard prankster" who is trying hard to be get through in a world of nasties. That stance didn't really ring true when compared to the advice he rams down people's throats with such veracity and part he and many like him played in momentum buying, pump and dump and the like.
We get the media we deserve, but we also should shine a light on it; and many fellow financial commentators will be wincing now. That's a good thing. Well done The Daily Show.
Last time Jon Stewart did this kind of interview it effectively killed a TV show (Crossfire) and likely a TV career (Tucker Carlson...no loss there. Whiney bow-tie wearing bitch). Wonder what will happen this time. Will Cramer reform or get the boot? I hope Stewart goes after 'Morning Schmoe'. I can't stand Doucheborough. I can't believe Mikka has never leapt across the table and scratched his eyeballs out.
@hoser:
People prefer pseudo-news because the supposed "real" news just parrots talking points. They read the AP wire. They never call anybody on any lie. They have, as far as I can tell, become as purposely shallow as possible. Which is why TDS can parody them so effectively.
One of The DS stock jokes is for Jon to ask one of the fake correspondents a real question for which they are "unprepared", fake the deer-in-the-headlights look, and answer with something completely moronic. To me, the moronic answer isn't the funniest part, it is the fact that this is exactly how the REAL news correspondents reply when off script, with statements that reveal total cluelessness.
The real news is about as shallow as a street puddle after a light rain. You won't see anybody exposed as a hypocrite, or shown to be a liar, or shown to be a complete asshole, or a politician shown to be just frikkin' crazy or stupid, like Ted Stevens.
The DS gives us the real news, and the "real news" gives us carefully crafted soundbites which are all just a sales job by somebody with an agenda, usually trying to lie to us.
That's why we don't watch it. We recognize it for what it is, one long commercial that is likely misleading half-truths or outright lies.
Cramer is just the convenient whipping boy in the sense that he had the balls to come on the program. As Stewart pointed out, this was really an indictment of all of the financial media - not just Kramer's show.
That being said, the clips that Stewart was running were particularly damning. They made it look like it was both fun and easy for a hedge fund to game the market.
Cramer acted like he wanted to try and reform things - I don't know how real that was - I don't normally watch his show, so I can't really say.
@hosertohoosier
> As I see it, we are STUCK with pseudo-news.
Oh sure, it's not going away. I don't expect it to go away, I'm not asking it to go away. However it'd be great if it'd 'fess up to what it really is. Truth in labeling.
P.S. It's not a completely zero-sum game. I actually don't watch The Daily Show that much but, though he does spread it around, it's pretty rare that he ties into PBS. Probably has something to do with them not juicing up the crazy much?
@Pete Kent
Your Madoff stuff was interesting, but hardly surprising. The Madoff family as a whole makes interesting reading if you break them down by category.
He and his family gave $149,050 1990-2002. He gave $24,000 over 12 years to individual politicians (his wife seems to have given $2000 to Fields under his name, unless his occupation was housewife), not a lot - $2000 a year. Only Markey and Schumer appear more than once. The family seems to be more politically active than Bernard is (with a large exception, see below).
6/16/92 $1,000 Abrams, Robert (D)
5/21/96 $1,000 Ackerman, Gary L (D)
4/26/99 $1,000 Bradley, Bill (D)
1/13/00 $1,000 Clinton, Hillary Rodham (D)
8/24/99 $1,000 Corzine, Jon S (D)
9/21/98 $1,000 D'Amato, Alfonse M (R)
11/8/93 $1,000 Dingell, John D (D)
10/16/92 $1,000 Dodd, Chris (D)
6/16/94 $2,000 Fields, Jack M Jr (R)6/22/94 $1,000 Fields, Jack M Jr (R)
4/20/00 $1,000 Fossella, Vito (R)
9/17/96 $1,000 Frisa, Daniel (R)
5/15/98 $1,000 Markey, Edward J (D)
6/29/94 $1,000 Markey, Edward J (D)
8/4/96 $1,000 Markey, Edward J (D)
3/10/00 $1,000 Obey, David R (D)
10/23/98 $1,000 Rangel, Charles B (D)
8/30/01 $1,000 Rangel, Charles B (D)
$1,000 Scheuer, James H (D)
5/22/98 $1,000 Schumer, Charles E (D)
4/8/02 $1,000 Schumer, Charles E (D)
4/8/02 $1,000 Schumer, Charles E (D)
5/5/98 $1,000 Tauzin, W J "Billy" (R)
11/28/95 $1,000 Wyden, Ron (D)
This is the whole family (named Madoff)
2nd KS Financial Services.
MADOFF, EMILY 7/21/08 $500 Jenkins, Lynn (R)
Senator NJ Appropriations; Commerce, Science and Transportation; and Environment and Public Works.
MADOFF, BERNARD L 7/20/07 $2,300 Lautenberg, Frank R (D)
MADOFF, BERNARD L 7/20/07 $300 Lautenberg, Frank R (D)
Financial Services. Oversight and Government Reform.
MADOFF, PETER 3/5/07 $500 Maloney, Carolyn B (D)
Senator Oregon Financial Services, Health, Education. Labor and Pensions, Budget committees
MADOFF, BERNARD 4/24/08 $2,300 Merkley, Jeff (D)
7th WI Appropriations, Chairman.
MADOFF, PETER B 3/7/07 $500 Obey, David R (D)
MADOFF, MARION 3/13/07 $250 EMILY's List
MADOFF, MARION 1/23/08 $250 EMILY's List
Choices for President - Hillary's the favorite and Bernie stays out of it
MADOFF SWANSON, SHANA 10/3/08 $500 Obama, Barack (D)
MADOFF, ERIC 2/11/08 $2,000 McCain, John (R)
MADOFF, JENNIFER 9/22/08 $250 Obama, Barack (D)
MADOFF, PAULA B 3/31/07 $2,300 Obama, Barack (D)
MADOFF, EMILY 1/26/07 $2,300 Clinton, Hillary (D)
MADOFF, EMILY 1/26/07 $1,900 Clinton, Hillary (D)
MADOFF, EMILY 3/22/07 $400 Clinton, Hillary (D)
MADOFF, EMILY 8/28/08 $-2,300 Clinton, Hillary (D)
MADOFF, PETER B 8/28/08 $2,300 Clinton, Hillary (D)
MADOFF, PETER B 11/6/07 $2,300 Clinton, Hillary (D)
MADOFF, PETER B 11/6/07 $2,300 Clinton, Hillary (D)
Now We're through fooling around It's time for Big Money
MADOFF, EMILY 2/12/08 $1,000 DNC Services Corp (D)
MADOFF, EMILY 11/7/08 $1,000 HILLPAC (D)
These take care of Schumer
MADOFF, BERNARD L 5/4/07 $25,000 Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte (D)
MADOFF, BERNARD L 9/12/08 $25,000 Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte (D)
MADOFF, BERNARD L 5/24/07 $5,000 Securities Industry & Financial Mkt Assn
MADOFF, BERNARD L 8/20/08 $5,000 Securities Industry & Financial Mkt Assn
MADOFF, PETER B 5/24/07 $5,000 Securities Industry & Financial Mkt Assn
MADOFF, PETER B 7/11/08 $5,000 Securities Industry & Financial Mkt Assn
And this frightening one. He's probably a personal friend who just happens to manage $200 billion. I should have such friends.
Andrew Marshall Saul (born November 6, 1946) is a millionaire businessman from Katonah, New York who serves as the Chairman of the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board (FRTIB) and Vice Chairman of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) in New York City, United States.[1][2] Saul has been a General Partner in the investment firm Saul Partners, L.P., since 1986.[3]
As Chairman of the Thrift Investment Board, he is responsible for managing the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) which is the retirement savings account for employees of the Federal Government and soldiers of the armed services.[4] The TSP is known to reap higher returns for their retirement than comparable private-sector workers, and is immune from many of the problems that plague mutual funds.[5] During Saul's tenure, the TSP was grown to over $200 billion in assets by 2007, making it twice as large as when he began in 2003.[
MADOFF, BERNARD L 7/10/07 $2,300 Saul, Andrew Marshall (R)
MADOFF, BERNARD L 12/5/07 $-2,300 Saul, Andrew Marshall (R)
MADOFF, RUTH 7/10/07 $2,300 Saul, Andrew Marshall (R)
MADOFF, RUTH 12/5/07 $-2,300 Saul, Andrew Marshall (R)
@ hosertohoosier
Incidentally Jim Lehr News Hour doesn't exactly kick establishment ass and take names, either. But at least they largely avoid the "sound bite" syndrome.
I think it is time to require registration and have an "ignore user" tab. I enjoy this site but the trolls - most of whom are imbeciles that wouldn't know a critical thought if it bit them on the ass - that spout their fallacious and ill-researched views are really ruining it. I've never posted before but I'm really sick of this site being ruined for me when I have to sort through the troll-scape. Is this possible? Can you make it so that we can ignore these willfully ignorant bigots?
I enjoy intelligent discourse as much, if not more, than the next person but the trolls do not usually contribute to a spirited, intelligent, and lively debate. An exchange of ideas has to be just that: an exchange where thoughts flow both ways. There is no point in continuing a conversation with someone who figuratively sticks their fingers in their ears and screams whenever you attempt to engage them in rational interchanges – and I’ve seen four year olds who are more receptive than the trolls on this site.
I know that banning them is not palatable or morally correct, and I am not advocating a ban, but giving those of us who can think at an adult level the ability to ignore them is not the same as silencing them.
Melody
I think Dwight has worked out your solution. It's a script you can download to identify commenters you'd like to skip. If he beat me to it, ignore this.
Tony
I agree about the shallowness of "real"news as opposed to "soft" news. Half the time, Stewart is about as real as it gets. The need to make money via advertising, plus the need to pitch news to the lowest common denominator, makes for pretty insipid stuff.
Then an oil company ad comes on in the middle of the "news" telling us how badly we need to have more oil in the future, how much they care about the environment, and how everything they're saying is just good ol' common sense.
So to expect there to be some version of the "news" that can be watched as though it's a faithful reporting of fact is naive. PBS does as good a job as anyone, but vast conceptual domains are still often overlooked (and I don't mean conservative domains).
Times are strange and complex and no individual has a total grasp on present day reality. My attitude towards news is like Mark Twain's on food. He said something to the effect that the way to be happy is to eat what you like and let the food fight it out in your stomach. Substitute "informed" for "happy", "watch, listen, and read" for "eat", "information" for "food", and "mind" for "stomach".
Folks who want their news interpreted and dispensed to them in ready-to-digest bite-sized pieces aren't likely to be satisfied unless they drink the Kool-Aid and just go with some hard-wired religious agenda. Then they can be comfortably wrong until they die--which leads me to my final Twain phrase: as surprised as a Presbyterian in hell.
cfp said...
Anyone else notice the Bank of America commercial last night? If the dissonance of that weren't something we're so accustomed to, it'd almost seem like a satire unto itself.
Early in CBS's 60 Minutes history (late 60s/early 70s) they had a report on how GM workers, when they got behind on the assembly line, would just skip putting the part on a car, and go to the next car. Immediately after that segment, a Chrysler commercial aired, announcing the beginning of Chrysler's guarantee, the first guarantee of any American auto maker. Sales of Chrysler Motor Corp vehicles immediately showed an increase, and for some time, GM products dipped in sales.
It was coincidence for the timing of the commercial - you can be sure that Chrysler didn't know how serendipitous the timing would be, but it worked to Chrysler's benefit in an unbelievable manner. Same with the BoA ad, only in reverse - they bought the ad at some time, not knowing the specific topic of discussion of the particular program the ad would appear on.
If we're talking about the culture that permitted deregulated and insane risktaking, overconsumption, and all that, I don't think either Cramer or Stewart is particularly responsible, but they are both more complicit than most. Stewart's habit of shrugging it all off, mugging for the camera, and then occasionally allowing himself some on-air righteousness is increasingly sad to me and less and less persuasive each time he does it. In some ways it's just a savvier version of what Cramer does on his show. It seems to me that different people watch these shows for the same reasons.
The difference - Cramer doesn't know if he is a commentator about Wall Street or a reporter of the news of Wall Street. Stewart knows and readily admits (even brags) that he is a commentator about society, including economics, politics, entertainment, sports, etc., etc. He makes sure people KNOW he is not reporting, but commentating on society in all it's nooks and crannies it is in.
Juris said...
I'm not asking for "balance" in the way that major news programs operationalize that term into a "he says-but he says" format without really looking for truth.
Juris brings up a good point. To some in the 'news business', there are two sides to any argument. There CAN be many sides, though.
Think economics - If the question is what is the ideal economic system, a news organization could have (knowing they're dead, but let's pretend) Lenin arguing with Hitler, or Stalin arguing with Trotsky, on the ideal economic system. All would present one viewpoint versus an almost polar opposite viewpoint, but would the viewpoints be representative of ALL economic systems?
M in M
Agreed as to the multiplicity of points of view that don't show up in the media. The solutions to improve the situation aren't obvious either.
If finding out what's going on is your goal, and you have enough time, it's probably somewhere on the web. If you don't have the time, you have to trust somebody, and that's the rub.
As the web progresses, you should be able to specify how much time you want to spend finding out about your chosen subjects, and a self-calibrated search engine would put it together for you with links you could follow if something interested you further. For all I know I'm describing something that's there already, but I haven't seen it.
Some mix of text, audio and video would be put together from sources I've either chosen or that the search algorithm thinks I might like. The drawback, of course, is that unless I chose it, opinions or information that I might not like would be off my radar. So I could remain happily ignorant if I wasn't careful.
You could trade search algorithms with your friends.
Why does discussions about criticism always have to devolve into a debate as to whether criticism is legitimate ? Of course it's legitimate, now let's address the substance of the criticism.
smk : But challenging someone or something in a public venue also entitles others to disagree with you. What bothers me is this attitude that the NYT has no right to question the substance of what JS says.
NYT has the right to question the substance of what JS says. It doesn't make that questioning right or clever or useful, but they can do it. But that's irrelevant because they didn't do it here. The whole article is a simple description of the whole thing, with the cute twist that it neglects to mention Stewart's most important points. Here are the takeaways I got from the interview :
1) it's not about Cramer. Quotable line : JS: But this isn’t, as Carly Simon would say, this song ain’t about you.
2) it's about CNBC being a cheerleader for Wall Street malfeasance even though they all know what's going on (see the 2006 clips of Cramer explaining and encouraging people to do stuff I don't really understand but I hear might be illegal. Quotable line : JS: I want the Jim Cramer on CNBC to protect me from that[2006] Jim Cramer. )
and
3) it's also about CNBC substituting interviews with CEOs for investigative reporting, and then throwing their hands in the air when it turns out the CEOs where, shocker, lying to them. Quotable line : JS: Yeah. I’m under the assumption, and maybe this is purely ridiculous, but I’m under the assumption that you don’t just take their word for it at face value. That you actually then go around and try and figure it out.
And yet the New York Times article describes the whole thing as being about Cramer, going on at length about the buildup and the Bear Stearns clips, Cramer going on Martha Stewart and so on. The only reference to point 2 is at the third-to-last paragraph : "Once he had Mr. Cramer at his desk, Mr. Stewart showed fresh and even more embarrassing clips from a 2006 interview with the Web site Mr. Cramer founded, TheStreet.com, in which he too candidly explained how hedge fund market manipulation really works.". And that's it. It then goes on to talk about the theatricality of Mad Money. It doesn't even describe Stewart's reaction to the 2006 clip, as it does for instance with the clip of Cramer on Martha Stewart.
And point 3 ? The article doesn't even hint at it, which is understandable because although Stewart is talking about CNBC, the point applies to the whole mainstream media and they know it.
Instead, they spend the whole article casting Stewart as a humorless grandstanding prosecutor while failing to even mention his most important points, instead going on about the trivialities.
Look at the quotes I've given. They're funny, they illustrate the point well and the last one in particular I'm seeing being quoted all over the place in comments, it speaks to people. Yet in the NYT article they preferred to quote his puns and line about cocaine and hookers.
Now who's the comedian ?
BeanoCook said, "Cramer is not host of FAST MONEY. That is another show, Cramer is host of MAD MONEY. Get your facts right losers."
But Jon Stewart didn't say Fast Money was Jim Cramer's show, Stewart was refering to another program on CNBC:
CRAMER: Well, I think that your goal should always be to try to expose the fact that there is no easy money. I wish I had found Madoff...
STEWART: But there are literally shows called Fast Money.
CRAMER: I think that people… [Audience laughs] There’s a market for it and you give it to them.
STEWART: There’s a market for cocaine and hookers. What is the responsibility of the people who cover Wall Street? Who are you responsible to? The people with the 401ks and the pensions and the general public, or the Wall Street traders, and by the way this casts an aspersion on all of Wall Street when I know that’s unfair as well...
http://www.vancouversun.com/Business/Transcript+Daily+show+interview+betwen+Stewart+Cramer/1386933/story.html
Statler N Waldorf said...
smk,
Bullshit.
I totally agree with Statler on this.
Oosaka san
Exactly. The NYT and other "serious" outlets can only deal with this story obliquely. If they embraced the issue seriously they'd be right there with Cramer and CNBC, looking like cheerleaders for the big lie.
The Shakespearean fool, as in King Lear, is the appropriate analog to Stewart. It's about telling truth to power, a tough thing to do when you're selling ads.
Holy shit, thanks to the dumbassery of SA, SMK, PK, and the rest of the numbnuts on the right that infect this site, the comments portion is 100% worthless.
Before the election, it was solid despite the dumbshits like PK and MR(who SA sounds exactly like, right down to the mindless attacks and challenges to Nate). What else could you call people that think that ignoring their posts is censorship?
I do sometimes wonder how they have time to spew their idiocy. here when they clearly spend most of their time fapping to the Free Republic and Coulter's bulge.
I think it is clear that the right wing numbnuts who post here are the same reason the Republican Party is dead.
Since there are no intelligent conservative on this site, with maybe one exception(A day or two ago Dale was posting and seemed worthwhile), this site is really nothing more than an echo chamber, with the occassional troll feeding fiesta(which I have been guilty of), although at least that is more stimulating than reading the constant stream of bullshit from the likes of PK and SA.
My point is, it is past time to just ignore these fuckwits. Use the Greasemonkey script if you have to, but please no more feeding the slugs.
Please?
Hu Chim,
Please reread my post. I was NOT calling for some script to find certain news items on the net.
I was presenting a scenario.
Almost everyone states 'there are two sides to a story' and the major media tries to present a one-on-one 'dialogue'. It can be false, as there might be two, three, four, five, or a thousand different views on a single subject.
An example - Christianity.
You've got the Roman Catholic (Vatican) viewpoint, then you've got the opinion of the Italians claiming to be Catholic, the French, the Americans (several different viewpoints), the South Americans (several different viewpoints), etc., etc.
You've got the Eastern Orthodox viewpoint, but within that there are the different national Orthodoxies (Greek, Serbian, Russian, Bulgarian, etc., etc.)
You've got the Coptic Orthodox Church in Egypt - closer to the Eastern Orthodox Church than the Vatican, but still different.
You've got the Protestant viewpoint, but that is the most fractured, from Lutheran (multimple synods), Episcopalian (high and low), Anglican, etc., at one end of the spectrum, to the Society of Friends (Quakers), Mennonites, Amish, Church of the Brethren, etc., at another end of the spectrum. Lest we forget, there are also several 'flavors' of Baptists.
And then there are some 'not easy to classify' groupings, such as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) and their offshoots, the Church of Christ, Scientist (Christian Scientists) the 'non-denominational' churches, and the 'unaffiliated' congregations.
There are also people who believe in Christianity, but don't believe in a church or church hierarchy.
So which TWO people would represent opposing viewpoints on Christianity? Or which ONE to represent Christianity vs. some other religion, such as Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, etc.?
Sometimes there are two, and only two, viewpoints on a subject, although that is much more rare than most people consciously realize. Many times there can be more than two viewpoints, and for a 'news' organization to present something with only two viewpoints EVERY G.D. TIME is dishonest.
Hu Chi,
Please pardon the mashing of your name I did on that previous post. It was totally unintentional, and I'm not at all sure how it happened.
Mike
Stewart's got some nerve taking Cramer to task for sucking up to CEO's, after his own sycophantic interview of Tony Blair. His show is supposed to be satirical, but it was meat and drink for a politician as adept as Blair. He had a real opportunity to take one of the prime architects of the war to task, and he allowed himself to be charmed as much as any power-worshipping journo out there.
Mike
No problem. I wasn't thinking you were saying anything other than what you said. Sorry if I didn't make it clearer.
I was just fantasizing about a way to get more sides of a story without waiting for the usual outlets to broaden their coverage or spending all day combing through websites.
CNBC ratings down:
http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/mixed-media/2009/03/13/the-stewart-dip-ratings-down-for-cnbc-cramer
Post a Comment