Check out all three parts. Jon takes Cramer out behind the woodshed and indicts the whole financial/journalism failure at CNBC.
Jon Stewart should win the Pullitzer
Comments
-
I think we should give Cramer credit for being willing to appear and defend the indefensible. He wasn’t 100% convincing, but at least he tried, and was happy to take what was thrown at him.
-
What gets me about this interview is that Cramer didn’t even put up a defense. He looked whipped, guilty and oddly contrite. I wonder if he’ll rebuild himself as a financial investigative journalist. Do those even exist?
-
My CNBC story:
On September 11th, 2001, I got back to my friend’s house after teaching and we were flipping through the news. On MSNBC, they were showing the video and some brunette anchor was talking with someone else (may have been a market analyst or a reporter). After a while of talking about the latest news, she asked him “What do you think this will do to the Dow?” All this while the bodies still smoldered. Materialism chews your soul to pieces if you buy into it like they do.
-
MSNBC should be CNBC, obv
-
I too have to give Cramer some credit for agreeing to appear on Stewart’s show. But Stewart had on earlier shows presented some damning evidence of Cramer’s poor and ill-judged more-or-less fawning interviews with CEOs and financial types — I think Cramer felt he had to go on the show, whatever the consequences.
Stewart nailed him. None of Stewart’s typical comedic approach, just impassioned interviewing. It’s strange that this interview appeared on a cable channel which mostly presents comedy!
-
Any chance of a working mirror of these for Canadians? There’s some agreement that says Comedy Central shows must only be shown on our local Comedy Network, which never shows any clip that isn’t aired (i.e. No special features, like the unedited Cramer beatdown).
-
just have to go to the ctv broadband web site, to get to the comedy channel.ca.
I usually watch the Daily show and Cobert reports there as I only have to watch 2 commercials per episode, and the shows are on long after we are in bed ( the joys of little chlidren and 6 am wake-ups)
-
I was amazed! watching this last night. Blown away. Couldn’t believe what I was seeing. Jon Stewart DOES need a Pulitzer.
-
Whilst I agree that Cramer deserves some credit for appearing at all, one shouldn’t grant him absolution.
I think there’s been a tendancy – not just around the financial mess, but more generally – for people to make major screw-ups and then after a suitably sad-faced appology it all gets forgotten, and it’s back to business as usual.
Cramer, along with a lot of other financial journalists really deserves to be abused. Only by their future actions, not just a few easy words can we know whether they’ve learnt some lessons.
-
Let’s say TV was Pulitzer eligible, Stewart shouldn’t win it because, well, he’s a comedian. The Daily Show isn’t, you know, journalism.
Still, it was an entertaining take down of Jim Cramer, though it unfairly pinned the entire financial meltdown on Cramer and CNBC.
-
“…though it unfairly pinned the entire financial meltdown on Cramer and CNBC.”
No, it didn’t.
-
“Let’s say TV was Pulitzer eligible, Stewart shouldn’t win it because, well, he’s a comedian. ”
And Mark Twain was a humorist. Your point?
-
“unfairly pinned the entire financial meltdown on Cramer and CNBC”
Jon REPEATEDLY said it wasn’t about Cramer during the interview. Did you watch it?
-
“Just a comedian”? Sometimes comedians can also be effective social commentators. Jon H’s comment was spot on; Mark Twain during his time was a strong critic of certain abusers of the public trust. The fact that he was also funny at times doesn’t take away from the effectiveness of his scathing social commentary.
When the mainstream media talking heads, perhaps due to certain corporate obligations and associations, turn a blind eye to MSM lying and obfuscation, sometimes it takes a “comedian” to inform us.
-
This takedown should be required reading for all journalism students.
-
Required viewing, that is.
I give Cramer credit for being willing to appear but, as stated above, it sure as shit doesn’t absolve him. I’m interested to see if he, in fact, follows up on his pledge to Stewart to do better. -
I say a Pulitzer AND an Emmy. Eat your hearts out “real” news media. This was THE defining media moment in this economic clusterfuck. If you’ve ever had to debate in public, you know what amazing skill it took to do what Stewart did. He stood up for the people that don’t have a voice with dignity and no small amount of grace. His justifiable outrage was under control at all times and he even displayed compassion for Cramer. After all, Cramer is, when all is said and done, just a symbol. He was a clownish, fratboy, mouthpiece for the I-got-mine Wall Street executives that have driven us to this economic precipice. The comparison to Mark Twain (and Will Rogers) are perfect. I believe we are all culpable in this mess to some extent, but Stewart pointed out who should have known better, who claimed to know better and ultimately who didn’t know better. That show will go down in history with other great media moments like Frost/Nixon and Welch/McCarthy. Epic win.
-
Kudo’s to Stewart. It is difficult to confront someone in public. However that is part of John Stewart’s job, normally he can do this under the guise of satire and comedy. But in this situation the guise was dropped and John Stewart did more for journalism than CNBC has done in a long time, if ever.
John Stewart isn’t just a comedian, and from this interview I think most people will be able to tell that he takes his responsibilities seriously, even if they veiled with comedy.
-
blah, I forgot to add… I give kudo’s to Kramer also for having the balls to go on The Daily Show. Big Steel Ones.
Leave a Reply