Friday, March 13, 2009

Cramer the Crap







Man, I haven't seen a stomping like this since that Who concert in Cincinnati back in '79.

21 comments:

Greg said...

Unbelievable.

And right there, right now, is why mainstream journalism is dead. No network or personality on air has the balls to do what Stewart just did.

Good on Stewart for taking Cramer down several pegs. CNBC just lost an entire generation of viewers.

Che Grovera said...

I watched that interview with mounting incredulity -- at first I was taken aback at how determined Stewart was to maintain his righteous indignation, then I was mortified at Cramer's utter lack of awareness as to what was actually taking place, and finally I was stunned that The Daily Show had just accomplished what no other television news outlet has even attempted to date (that I'm aware of). It was more like a 60 Minutes piece from their heyday...such is the state of TV journalism in the 21st century. Jon Stewart is the new Morley Safer. Wow.

Heather Hansma said...

When will they learn? Yes, TDS is a comedy show and Jon Stewart is a comedian, but he is also a very intelligent and compassionate man. If you fuck with his country he will not pull any punches. He will not backpedal when he says the truth and the target of that truth gets offended. If you try and fuck with him, he will come out guns blazing. Don't sit and lie to the American people and then expect the American people to fall for it. It is insulting and Jon stands up for us when people in politics and the media talk to us like we are fucking retarded.

Anonymous said...

No, journalism is dead because we have a generation who never heard of Jack Anderson or Bob Woodward or Seymour Hersh. A generation that insists on getting it's information in a "news lite" format. It's got to be a hip and fun and comedic spoon feeding. Stewart & Cramer are both in the same business. They are simply entertainers; nothing more.
If and when you get serious about national and world events and/or politics you might have to resort to reading, and it could lengthier than an eight minute snippet.

Mart said...

I was expecting Cramer to shout over Stewart; but he was handcuffed by the videos Stewart's team had put together. What can you shout over when your own words show you to a coniviving creep?

Cramer said the CNBC "journalists" took everything they were told to them by the John Galt's of the word to be the truth - and well Cramer was shocked, shocked I tell you that these fine Captains of Industry would lie to them.

They are lazy suck ups and they have misguided us. Time to renew their contract and give them a raise.

chenry said...

If we were to equate this to a boxing match, it would be Muhammad Ali versus a 14 yr-old-girl with Down Syndrome. And that girl has no arms.

C.L.J. said...

Jon Stewart is the most effective journalist on TV. This is how all such interviews should be run.

Chez said...

Anon 10:21 --

Before you start down the familiar road of lamenting the death of journalism, understand that it comes in many forms. True, our attention spans have shrunk drastically, creating the rise of "news lite" as you call it -- but that doesn't make what Stewart did in just a few minutes (and please remember that this is a cut-down version of the full interview) any less effective. Even in the context of an extended piece, an interview is typically a quick affair -- and Stewart and his producers nailed this one.

Anonymous said...

And this Cramer went on every show he could to defend himself, then spent the entire segment mea culpa-ing and sucking up to Jon Stewart. What was that about? Maybe this guy is more an idiot than a conniving shill?

Anonymous said...

It wasn't me who started down that road; it was Greg. I was just saying that it is not because Stewart does such a great job that that newspapers and news journals are failing. And I'm not denigrating what Stewart did. But we got into a war in Iraq because the public wasn't reading the investigative reporting that warned of the hazards of such folly. Unfortunately, it couldn't be delivered to your door piping hot in 30 minutes like your pizza.

Heather Hansma said...

The argument could be made that the length of new programming has led to the downfall of journalistic credibility, not the demand for "news lite."

Tony said...

Chez, your YouTube link is now dead, courtesy of a copyright infringement claim from Viacom.

No worries though; TheDailyShow.com now has the complete interview in all its glory.

micheal said...

goddamnit the video got taken down

SteveR said...

Damn refreshing.

ian in hamburg said...

The youRube video may be down, but you can catch it on the Jon Stewart official website, eh?

http://www.thedailyshow.com/

micheal said...

i just caught the re-run on tv.
wow
cramer reminds me of my old boss
i feel dirty

James Bradford said...

I think what is really interesting here is that the thing that enables Jon Stewart to do what he has done in this cases is strongly related to what he is going after CNBC for.

To me it seems that Stewart is criticizing CNBC for not holding truth to power in illuminating the rising economic crisis in the last few years. Rather than investigate the CNBC model has been to cultivate "access" with major corporations, banks and CEOs. To do so they no doubt have to sacrifice the ability to go after these persons and institutions if there is a negative story to be had.

What is interesting (in an bizzarro world kind of way) is that Stewart and The Daily Show, who have little to no desire for access, are able to stand out there and call these as they see it as they have little to lose.

In a big way this is the rot at the heart of Journalism. The companies in the position to reward hard-hitting, incisive journalism are not interested in doing so, and thus the potential Andersons and Woodwards aren't given the room or incentive to operate.

Of course, as we know, the traditional news purveyors are not sitting pretty. We can only hope that the nascent efforts coming from the blogosphere and other new sources of information can one day replace this type of journalism so our "comedians" don't have to.

Heather Hansma said...

The extended version is far greater than I had anticipated. It also becomes less of an attack on Cramer. I think they edited it well for the time they had, but the whole tone changes into something much greater when you see the whole interview.

Graham said...

Mart: I think you have mischaracterized John Galt and Ayn Rand for the sake of creating a mindset to blame.

Contrary to what Colbert and the republicans push Atlas Shrugged as, the book is not about a bunch of selfish elitists trying to escape the mooching proles.

John Galt and the people who are holding the world up in the novel are not idealized because they are rich, influential or selfish. They are idealized because they critical thinkers and realists.

The moochers in the book were the ones who were rich, egotistic and willing to do anything to sustain their fantasy while all around them they were wrecking the country by passing laws that claimed to help the poor but which they later abused to further their own needs (e.g. manufacturers who didn't want to improve to compete [see the history of US car manufactures vs. the Japanese manufactures] and people who manipulated the press to sustain their political status [see George W Bush and the Iraq war]). They were mooching because they needed John Galt & others like him to sustain their fantasies and greed.

The lesson from the book was not to be selfish but to realize that it’s ok to think about your needs when people force blind altruism on you.

The question Ayn Rand asks you isn't about the morality of selfishness but, what selfishness actually is and who defines it [like Bill Orielly telling you to support the troops or you hate America, then calling support for the troops socialism and anti-American].

Sorry for the long rant but the fact that the Republicans have hijacked a philosophy that actually criticizes the very behaviour that characterises their party just strikes a nerve with me.

March said...

To be fair to Cramer, he was asked open questions that Stewart was looking for a specific answer. As an outsider, yeah, Cramer got creamed, annihilated, badly. But, The answers Jon Stewart was looking for was for Cramer's admission that CNBC should help us out more than what it is doing now. I really don't think Cramer thought that Stewart was looking for that, he look completely blindsided when confronted with Stewart's (completely legitimate) points, but I really don't think Jon gave him a good opportunity to speak. It seemed more like a podium for Jon to speak against again Cramer, far different than what appears to be an intent to be an interview.

A Bowl Of Stupid said...

I've got to agree with March. I honestly don't think Cramer was 'creamed' as much as you and the other pundits claim.

Don't get me wrong, I love the guy, but Stewart simply went on another of his self-righteous rants, similar to the ones he and everyone else in the peripheral (and mainstream: i.e., Frontline, etc.) media went on after No. 43 systematically used the MSM as the official 'Pro-Iraqi Invasion' mouthpiece ... and which he and the rest then almost immediately forgot in lieu of 'holograms' and a black President.

Does it really matter if it's a question of incompetence or irrelevance in a country with the collective memory span of a banana slug?

Not so much, no.