| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Troll_Bait
Joined: 04 Jan 2006
Location: [T]eaching experience doesn't matter much. -Lee Young-chan (pictured)
|
 Posted: Fri Mar 13, 2009 4:17 pm Post subject: Jon Stewart tears CNBC's Jim Cramer a new one |
 |
|
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/index.php?rn=222561&cl=12470281&ch=224106
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/090312/entertainment/tv_stewart_cramer_showdown
| Quote: |
"I understand that you want to make finance entertaining, but it's not a ... game," Stewart told Cramer, adding in an expletive during the show's Thursday taping.
...
"I can't reconcile the brilliance and knowledge that you have of the intricacies of the market with the crazy ... I see you do every night," said the comedian.
Stewart said he and Cramer are both snake-oil salesman, only "The Daily Show" is labelled as such.
He claimed CNBC shirked its journalistic duty by believing corporate lies, rather than being an investigative "powerful tool of illumination."
And he alleged CNBC was ultimately in bed with the businesses it covered - that regular people's stocks were "capitalizing on your adventure."
For his part, Cramer disagreed with Stewart on a few points, but mostly acknowledged that he could have done a better job foreseeing the economic collapse: "We all should have seen it more."
Cramer said CNBC was "fair game" to the criticism and acknowledged the network was perhaps overeager to believe the information it was fed from corporations.
"I, too, like you, want to have a successful show," said Cramer, defending his methods on "Mad Money." He later added: "Should we have been constantly pointing out the mistakes that were made? Absolutely. I truly wish we had done more."
Cramer insisted he was devoted to revealing corporate "shenanigans," to which Stewart retorted: "It's easy to get on this after the fact." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 13, 2009 6:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/index.jhtml?episodeId=220533
You can watch it here. Stewert is a terrible interviewer though. It was hard to look directly at but Stewert doesn't exactly score that many points except for the footage of Cramer incriminating himself. Which he didn't follow up on letting Cramer off the hook.
Stewert has gone down, in my estimation, since Obama took office. He gives Obama way too many free passes for stuff he would've ripped Bush a new one over. Also he's a leftist sychophant which I always let go because he is "only a comedian." But he has actual sway amongst the media elite now plus pretensions to being a heavy hitter. So he needs to up his game or shut up in my opinion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
reactionary
Joined: 22 Oct 2006
Location: korreia
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 13, 2009 7:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"He gives Obama free passes."
Pretty much the words of people who don't regularly watch the show. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 13, 2009 10:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| reactionary wrote: |
"He gives Obama free passes."
Pretty much the words of people who don't regularly watch the show. |
I watch the show religiously, mate. The only "ribbing" I can think of Stewert giving Obama was over when the President had a heap of bands play at the Whitehouse. I'm a huge fan of the show. It's by far the most honest critique of the western media that exists on TV. But Stewert is definitely more of the Huffington Post persuasion than of the Pajamas Media ilk. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spike
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 13, 2009 10:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| reactionary wrote: |
"He gives Obama free passes."
Pretty much the words of people who don't regularly watch the show. |
I watch the show religiously, mate. The only "ribbing" I can think of Stewert giving Obama was over when the President had a heap of bands play at the Whitehouse. I'm a huge fan of the show. It's by far the most honest critique of the western media that exists on TV. But Stewert is definitely more of the Huffington Post persuasion than of the Pajamas Media ilk. |
Seriously.. I doubt you watch it much.. Stewart has taken the guy to task repeatedly... even comparing his speeches to bush's and criticising how similar they are... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 13, 2009 11:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Comparing speechs is a joke. I guaratee you could splice togeather Hitler and Obama and Stalin and Mother Theresa saying vaguely similar things. Six degrees of separation and all that. At the end of the day Stewert basically agrees with Obama. Which is his prerogative.
Trust me, I watch the show. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 14, 2009 1:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Stewert has gone down, in my estimation, since Obama took office. He gives Obama way too many free passes for stuff he would've ripped Bush a new one over. Also he's a leftist sychophant which I always let go because he is "only a comedian." But he has actual sway amongst the media elite now plus pretensions to being a heavy hitter. So he needs to up his game or shut up in my opinion. |
| Quote: |
| I watch the show religiously, mate. |
Folks, I think we've found a professional masochist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 14, 2009 1:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Masochism. Amazing. Suggesting some kind of mental disorder explains someone's articulating views that do not resonate with your own. One never sees that from the left... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
regicide
Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 14, 2009 2:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Masochism. Amazing. Suggesting some kind of mental disorder explains someone's articulating views that do not resonate with your own. One never sees that from the left... |
I could not agree with you more, Gopher. It sure brings back memories of a certain discussion on the Current Events forum. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unposter
Joined: 04 Jun 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 14, 2009 5:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh come on people. Stewart is influential because his criticism is illuninating, humorous but most importantly unique on TV. He usually looks at issues that the mainstream media is just not addressing such as the financial media industry's role in both complicity with the financial companies to pretend the mess wasn't happening and duping Americans to believe that there were few to no risks in putting their retirement money in the market and for not reporting that the financial companies were using people's retirement money to cover-up for their losses in derivatives.
The days of good old fashioned conservative investing has been lost with these "Mad Money" shows and Jon Stewart was the first person even loosely associated with the main street media to address this issue.
Stewart deserves a pulitzer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 14, 2009 5:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There is nothing unique in playing the cherry-picking muckraker. It is not only clich�; but it also seems to represent the most common pathway to media fame and influence -- which represents, at the end of the day, Jon Stewart's number one priority.
Pulitzer indeed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
richardlang
Joined: 21 Jan 2007
Location: Gangnam
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 14, 2009 5:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I don't understand the circumspection with which some people regard Jon Stewart's unmasking of Kramer's phoniness. What should have Stewart done in the interview that he didn't do? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 14, 2009 5:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| What exactly is and is not Jon Stewart's business as a comedy-hour host again? Because we seem to be falling all over ourselves here to cheer him for "tearing Cramer a new one..." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
richardlang
Joined: 21 Jan 2007
Location: Gangnam
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 14, 2009 5:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| What if he hadn't, like so many other soft-ball interviewers have? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unposter
Joined: 04 Jun 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 14, 2009 7:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Talk about cherry picking. You talk about the criticism of Craemer without discussing the larger problems. You seem to forget that Craemer, CNBC and all the other Financial Media failed to report the problems the financial companies were having while at the same time encouraging people to buy those stocks while Stewart's videos clearly showed that they knew what was going on suggesting that the Financial media either was in bed with the financial companies or they were really bad at doing their job. Either way they need to make significant reforms which they had not even begun to even think about until Stewart's criticism.
Another thing you fail to mention is that Craemer himself agreed with Stewart and admitted that he personally failed to do things and that he should and would in the future.
I think the media has picked up on this issue besides the absurdity of it (a comediane telling the emperor he isn't wearing any clothes) because well Stewart is right and they for whatever reason cannot say that but they can report this issue.
Anyone who wants to attack Stewart on this issue should certainly reconsider. Even Craemer reconsidered so why shouldn't you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
