Jon Stewart takes Jim Cramer to the woodshed
 

Jon Stewart and Jim Cramer: The Extended Daily Show Interview | Indecision Forever | Comedy Central

(3 vids, the uncensored interview)

What the hell is going on when Jon Stewart is the guy who has to call for responsibility from a reckless investment community?

this is good to watch. I read about it, but am just now watching it. I'm a fan of the entertainer Jim Cramer, but the investor, not really listening to him.

I tried to watch this when it aired last night but turned it off shortly after it started because I was embarrased for Jim Cramer. He seemed completely broken and lost.

I don't watch his show but assumed he'd be able to argue his situation and talk passionately about the unpredictability of the market and the challenges of communicating its complexities to the masses but instead he just kind of bumbled and flop sweated under John's pointed questions.

I applaud John (and the show's writers and producers) for not treating him with kidgloves but it also felt like a sad rout. It's like he's the scapegoat for lazy journotainment.

I wonder if his show will be cancelled and his career ruined? I wonder if CNBC will make any changes or is this dustup just tempest in the blogosphere that doesn't have any effect elsewhere.

Cramer was pretty pitiful. He tried a few times to move the blame, but Jon dismissed it immediately and moved on.

CNBC is a PR firm for wall street. It's about time someone said it outloud.

Don't look now but Stewart's been calling "Bull Shit!" on a wide ranging number of issues for years. I really liked his appearance on CNN's CrossFire where he called Tucker "Bow-tie" Carlson a dick. Crossfire was canceled in weeks.

As for Cramer, who takes a guy seriously when he throws stuff and uses AM Radio sounds effects to boaster his financial wisdom? Every time I've ever seen his show I keep thinking when does the tiny car and the rest of the clowns come out?

what i'm confused about in this is the status that's being imputed to jon stewart, whom i find sometimes funny but often not, sometimes smart but often not, but a comedian all the time. it's good i suppose that he said the self-evident to jim cramer--but it really is self-evident, what he said. so i don't quite get the notion that stewart is performing some greater public service by doing a show in which cramer is booked as a guest.

to me, it speaks to a *real* problem with the media apparatus in the states that the most cogent political commentary happens on the comedy network.

and this is not to say that i have a problem with the daily show--but still...

This is what I'm saying. Why does it take a guy doing a news parody show on Comedy Central to call these jokers out? Why is Jon Stewart the guy who has to hold them accountable? Aren't there, I don't know--JOURNALISTS--who should be doing this? Why do we have to watch Comedy Central to get to the root of the matter?

The same reasons why animated characters and puppets can get away with it... it's not the same thing as the established groups. If it falls flat they can just hide behind, "sorry that was a bad joke"

but sometimes they can't like Bill Maher and the 9/11 quip, which I thought was more spot on than any of the rest I was hearing during those days.

The answer is horrifically simple: no one took the Daily Show seriously until it was too late. With other news shows, the PTB know right off the bat that they need to assert their influence, making little snips here and there, nudging the show in a certain direction so that there isn't too much questioning of the status quo. The Daily Show has segments called "Clusterfuck to the Whitehouse" where they photoshop Bush and a couch in order to sell a pun which is only loosely related to a news story. It's 99% satire, which is able to camouflage the other 1%, which has substance. It's been that way ever since Craig Kilborne really hit his stride, but it started as a big joke, making fun of the 24 hour news cycle and how seriously the news circle jerk takes itself.

We've come to a point where the show, and in particular Stewart, are a little too well known to start nudging the same way you might see someone nudging Rachel Maddow or Wolf Blitzer. We, the collective audience, already know what Jon Stewart is like when he's essentially off the leash, and we'd notice if things started to change. And Jon even has a partner in Colbert now, further venturing into the odd combination of 99% parody and 1% substantive journalism. Remember, that's about 1% more than we normally get.

I understand and I agree with you. You and RB. Except I think I find JS funny and smart more often then RB. Some people just like tater tots more then other people.

Oh... who's making tater tots???? I love tater tots!!!

I think that's a very accurate read.

Jon Stewart gets that. In fact, it was central to his discussion with Bill Moyers in 2007. Sadly, not much has changed.

Watch the uncensored cut that is linked in the OP, it's a lot easier to watch than the broadcast version, as there is more give and take, and he seems less defeated.

If it's self evident that cnbc is full of shit, then why are people still watching it? I don't think that's self evident at all - and it certainly wasn't before Stewart started pointing it out. Perhaps you are a genuine financial wizard who saw the collapse coming a long time ago, but the majority of the public does not understand such things, and therefore relies at least in part on business journalism to help them understand what they need. The corporations certainly do not have an incentive to tell the truth if it would harm their interests, and so it is the journalists' job to do it. And the "journalists" on cnbc are not by and large doing that job, in part because as has been mentioned they are pretty much a mouthpiece for Wall Street, but also because these journalists by and large do not understand economics. Few people do. Even Greenspan, the nation's top economist for a very long time, clearly didn't understand economics. At all. Because if he had, he wouldn't have encouraged people to do what killed the economy.


Agreed. It's a shame that journalists now largely lack the balls to go after crooks. It's a shame that it's left to a guy who insists he's not a journalist, to do the job that the journalists should be doing. But I don't think that's a reason to pooh-pooh the Daily Show or what they did in this video. I think it's much more a reason to go after the "real" journalists.

I dunno, I watched Cramer several times before this mess and it has to be clear that he's an entertainer. I don't know if I'd say it's self-evident that people know CNBC is full of shit, but it would take a bad case of myopic to think that it was a 100% legitimate source of financial advice. Even aside from the fact that Cramer is a cartoon character, the network has never done any kind of journalism. I've never seen a CNBC expose on anything. I've never seen them ask any kind of hard question. It's like Bloomberg without the effort.

You're right, Shakran, to point out that no one on TV understands economics. Those that do understand it have a vested interest in not sharing their knowledge. As soon as the surfs learn to read, the lords lose their control.

i dunno, shakran---i watched kramer a couple times over the past 10 days or so. i don't know why exactly--but nonetheless that there were myriad problems with much of what he was saying seemed to be self-evident. maybe there's a demographic whose sensibilities are mirrored by that guy. part of me would prefer to think he's not really talking to anyone, but i know it's not the case. but if you watch cnbc, the dominant viewpoint is hysterical--the one note has been "obama is trying to destroy all wealth! this is class war!"

there is something self-evidently fucked up about that.
i don't think you need economics training to see it.
but that's just my viewpoint.

That George W. Bush was a terrible president - whether you're a Republican or Democrat - is pretty self-evident too, yet about 30% of Americans still think he was at least decent.

It's self-evident that Jim Cramer is an entertainer, except almost all news these days is more accurately entertainment. In that context, it's not surprising that plenty of people view him and CNBC as informative.

And he's not just a TV host. He has a number of books on investing which are frequently bestsellers.

It may be self-evident that he's just an entertainer, but that doesn't mean millions of people won't still listen to what he says and think they're learning something. People are always looking for ways to get rich or thin or whatever without having to go through the necessary work or tedium. And we're so used to infotainment that we've forgotten how to really learn.

Well my guess is Dr. Phil isn't helping anyone out with his advice either.

Jon Stewart is important, I think. In the echo chamber that is television, there needs to be some voice inside there that goes, "Hey, this isn't right!" It's one thing to blast political figures that are screwing us, but that's not so rare. At least Jon does it with humor, right? Where he really shines is when he focuses his attention on other media outlets and calls out their mistakes. This is what is so rare and valuable in a broadcast world where everyone enforces everyone else's power over imagination. It's not unfortunate that a comedy show happens to be the voice of reason... comedy has always been about perspective.

This interview was spectacular. I do think that Jim Cramer was strung up as the whipping boy for his whole network, but he was proven to be just as big a part of the problem as anyone else.

It's important to remember that John Stewart isn't just a comedian, he's a satirist. We tend to forget that he isn't merely criticizing politics with his humour, he's doing it while maintaining an elaborate parody of television news "infotainment."

I think one reason why he keeps reminding guests, critics, and viewers of this is because once we start looking at his show as a legitimate political entity—once we start taking it seriously—the satire will have failed and the show would lose its power to target television news media (and politics to a degree). Instead, it would become a part of that machine.

i think that's a good point, comrade guru...i should say to follow up that stewart is an effective satirist and one of the consequences of this effectiveness is that his work draws attention to the extraordinary restrictedness of the american "free" press, particularly when it comes to what you'd think would be a central function of the press--encouraging (by mirroring, by generating) vigorous debate.

i put up a thread last night about the future of capitalism series that the financial times just started, which seems to me to perform this function---and to have an effect in casting a glance back at the desert of american busy infotainment--and arriving at similar conclusions.

maybe two such instances in less than 24 hours has made me cranky.

I missed this, sorry. I remember this and thought Bill was being pretty honest. But the US wanted to hear we're heroes and they're awful, cowardly and evil. This is one of my main problems with wars. Each side always thinks they're right. IMO, it's usually a case of both being wrong to some degree.

Violence is a stupid immature way to resolve conflicts. Most people learn this as a child. Oddly enough many countries on this planet spend, US more then any, massive amounts of money preparing to be violent and few stand up to voice their opinion that it's wrong.

It was a great show, Stewart was all over Cramer. I have to give it to Cramer though, even though he was whipped, he seemed to take it like a man. Cramer really is more of an entertainer like Stewart, than a source of reliable information. Perhaps some of Stewarts anger should have been directed toward the idiots that followed his advice.

Rewatching the interview, I feel less and less sorry for Cramer. The dude is unabashedly part of the scheme. They mention fomenting the market and that's exactly what Cramer does with his "infotainment" program.

I don't buy the "he's an entertainer" bit. The guy has a lot of insider experience in finance. While everyone watching knows that he embellishes his persona, there is no indication that he isn't serious about what he says.

I'm glad Stewart handed him his ace in a bag. I also agree it is sad when the first journalist to take one of these guys on is from a comedy-satire show on Comedy Central.

Honestly, it seemed like Cramer hadn't prepared at all which is quite ridiculous considering the circumstances. He would have been better off just not coming on the show.

Also, Stewart repeatedly said that although he's coming down on Cramer there are many more who deserve to be chastised just as much.

John Stewart is a political critic when it comes to things considered conservative. Whenever anyone expects him to dole out the same level of criticism to liberals, he resorts to the "Huh? I'm just a comedian on a satire show!" excuse. Not that I think Cramer didn't deserve some criticism.

I call bullshit. Stewart is a political critic when it comes to things considered neo-conservative, yes, and when someone expects him to dole out the same level of criticism to liberals they're being an idiot. Stewart clearly feels, as apparently does the majority of the country, that the liberal way is the better way, especially in light of the fact that the neo-cons broke the country in a myriad of ways. Neocons have this idea that journalists should be biased (Fox News is AWESOME!) but political critics must be balanced (well you say neocons are screwups, you have to say that about everyone else! -whine-)

It's crap. Stewart criticizes the neocons because in his mind (and mine) they richly deserve it. That doesn't mean he then has to criticize everyone else in order to "make up for it."

In this instance Cramer earned his criticism along with the rest of CNBC. This "oh well he's an entertainer" stuff is crap. He's on a network that bills itself as the place to turn to for financial wisdom, and his show is advertised as a fun presentation of serious financial topics. "In Cramer We Trust," and so forth. His show is billed as being sound advice packaged in a fun-to-watch way. Fine. That means the advice had better be sound, or he'd better be ready to take his lumps. Whining that "I'm an entertainer" is horseshit. Then get your own show on Comedy Central and don't run around telling people to buy or sell stocks. Stay off of the channel that claims to be the financial "news" channel.

I really don't care if Stewart has a rager for neo-cons. However, I lost all respect for him when I saw him pull the "Dude, I'm on a comedy show." excuse rather than immediately own up to the fact that he apparently hates neo-cons and/or conservatives. He pussed out, in my opinion.

He makes fun of what deserves to be made fun of: shitty reporting and shitty politics. What more do you want?

I think you see things way too rigidly in terms of "liberal vs conservative."
It is simply easier to make good satire about the current mainstream media and the republican party because they are at such disarray. He did make fun of Kerry, and even of the democratic convention. But it is simply easier (and more popular) to make fun of blowhards like Oreilly, Bush and Hannitty than it is to make fun of Rachel Maddow, Obama and Paul Begala. Cramer? Well, he was just asking for it.

In regards to the economic analysts in the mainstream media and/or our government officials, I don't know what scares me more:

- They knew an economic collapse was coming soon and decided not to tell us.

or

- They did not know.

Well, hasn't it always been the role of the court jester to be the only wise or sane one in a court of idiots? There's a line from Shakespeare about this, if my wits were a little more present at the moment (King Lear?)... Anyway, I have always thought of John Stewart as America's jester, or the boy who cries out that the emperor has no clothes... and that is why he can get away with doing these things when no one else can, or when no one else is even willing to try.

Abaya... I was just about to post something about the court jester. Thanks for making the point.

As for telluride being incensed that Stewart cops the, "we're just a comedy show," he's speaking the truth. The Daily Show is not journalism. It's comedy. Moreover, at Baraka_Guru points out, it's satire (a particular type of comedy).

It is not The Daily Show's job, duty, whatever, to be fair. Stewart points this out all the time.

His job is to be a buffoon. His job is to declare that the Emperor isn't wearing any clothes.

well, the irony is that the jester has that position in the context of a monarchy.
so there's a backhanded way in which we're all making the same point, but with varying degrees of explicitness about that last part.

Bullshit.

I've seen just as much vitriol aimed at liberals who grind their axes in the face of reality as well..

Unfortunately for certain points of view 'conservatism' flies directly in the face of reality for the most part and DEMANDS satire.

Hence...

It's actually pretty easy to make fun of Obama as well as his supporters.

---------- Post added at 11:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:18 PM ----------

The problem is that the interview with Cramer wasn't comedy. It was a political grilling. If that's what Stewart wants to do with his show, good for him. But if that's how he wants to run his show, I'd just rather he not use "I host a comedy show!" as a defense against criticism.

Maybe I should have qualified my statement as "make fun in a funny way." You have to be unbelievably partisan to think that Obama lends itself to the same sort of mockery that Bush "Fool me once" did. Maybe you think that "Obama the magic negro" or pictures of watermelons and fried chicken in the white house are funny as hell, but whatever shortcomings Obama might have, he simply does not put his foot in his mouth as often as his predecessor.

And you simply ignored every other point made. While he is clearly a liberal, Stewart has made fun of several top democrats, most notably John Kerry. Hell, he first gained notoriety making fun of Clinton (which is another one who is easy to make fun of).

There was very little that was "political grilling" in Cramer's interview, if you actually watched. Very little was related, if at all, to policy or politics. It was mostly about poor journalism and unethical practices of reporters. And a lot of it was funny, and it was all in a context in which Cramer had been made fun of in previous programs, defended himself in other media, and then was asked in to debate that.

Finally, I find it funny when republicans start with this sort of "affirmative action for conservatives in the entertainment media" rants. Apparently the free market isn't efficient there, and producers should keep giving Ben Stein, Dennis Miller and the makers of "An American Carol" more money they will never see again.

You must be unbelievably partisan to think that there is nothing about Obama to mock other than his racial background. I'd think a good satirist could come up with plenty to say about Obama's associations with terrorists and black nationalists, for example.

I never said he didn't make fun of liberals. I said he wasn't nearly as critical of them as he is of conservatives.

The poor journalistic practices were directly related to politics/economics, in this case. I'm assuming that a TV personality who lied or screwed up commentary about video games or football wouldn't have been taken to task by Stewart.

I'm not a Republican, thank you.

You obviously haven't seen the show recently. He tears into Pelosi and Reid and Obama all the time.

Yeah, I can see people just cracking up over yet another Ayers reference. But hey, if you think there is a market for that, go for it.

See Kerry, Pelosi, Clinton and Reid. Hell, he was about the first one to really mock the whole grandiosity of the democratic convention.

Have you even watched the interview? Or any of the preceding shows on Cramer?
It had nothing to do with regulations, support of the market, etc.
It had everything to do with pathetic predictions, a complete lack of fact checking, no actual investigative reporting, and several clips of Cramer saying how to manipulate the market through the media. Unless you think that floating or fomenting false or misleading information to boost one's positions is part of someone's political platform, I don't really see that as "political grilling."

And you can't really see why at this particular point screwed up commentary about financial markets is a wee bit more of a hot topic than football or video games?