Holy ****balls; he DID do a second interview!

TDS is commonly known as parody news ala SNL, but this interview is television journalism history.

This is as real as it gets. This exchange of ideas is the stuff that scares all the wrong people.

I have to give props to Cramer; there were a million ways he could have done this wrong and ****ed himself, but he chose to be forthright instead of defensive.

Yes, there's a bit of the old cop-out going on, but overall I see and sense two keen minds that will walk away from this experience with a much better understanding of who they are, where they stand in the world, and what their responsibilities to themselves and their Countrymen are in the big picture.

That was great.

Okay, they had me at "Buy Low and Sell DIE."

Ha, the TheStreet interview! Ohhhhhhh my God, he actually tried to claim he wasn't actually condoning it! This is ****ing amazing.

This may be an even more rapid, profound end to a show than when he killed Crossfire.

Now that was an epic beat down.

"The Daily Show" is comedy, but is more true to journalistic ideals than the entire Fox Network. I read somewhere a few months back that more 20 to 30 year olds get news from the Daily Show than any other cable TV source. That's kind of scary, but if all the newspapers go out of business, and Time, Newsweek and US News & World Report follow, than TV blabber is all that will be left.

I wish I was a fly on the wall back at Mizzou. I did three years of grad school in journalism.

Ugh, last night was awful.

Stewart tries too hard and Cramer completely pussed out by not really defending himself.

Bull****. It's funny as hell, but their clip montages are a ****hair from this;

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/XLsPlDjQCNA&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/XLsPlDjQCNA&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

That says a lot of the lack of intelligence of many 20 to 30 year olds getting their news from a douche nozzle like Stewart.

Really? How did he "try too hard"? And what could Cramer defend?

(Not really trying to play onside because I know next to nothing about economics.)

It was much more attack but Cramer didn't do what Tucker did and fight Stewart at every turn. I think the backpedaling and retreating saves him. I just wonder if he says no more promos.

I love this argument. Comedy/Satire can't be a source for news and if it is it says something about the demographics. It's a laughable argument. It says more about the mainstream media than it does about the demographics the DS reaches. George Stephonomulfugus is one of many people who are employed by main stream networks that shouldn't be. Gone are the Murrow's replaced by wannabes, Bill O, Keith Olberman, etc.

I apologize, I misunderstood. In that case, I have no problem with this. I evaluate everything I have a couple times a year, though I dont necessarily panic after a bad year. It takes a lot for me to trade, but I still at least ask myself why I still own this. (even if you had a great year, then I ask "Is this for real?")

Stewart tries too hard to make himself out to be an expert while also playing the "I'm just a comedian" role if he is ever questioned. On one hand he will admit that there are some very complex financial issues that he doesn't understand, but on the other hand he acts like it is completely ridiculous to place any ounce of blame on American mortgage holders. An issue doesn't get this large and devastating unless many parties are involved and accountable.

Cramer completely pussed out, and I'm not sure why. He could have defended himself by simply saying he has a f'n talk show about stocks and is not Miss Cleo. Hopefully no one is stupid enough to think every individual stock prediction he has will be correct.

Cramer is an extremely intelligent man; the guy went to Harvard Law School, paid for law school by trading his personal account, became a successful journalist while living in his car, and then ran a multi-billion dollar hedge fund before creating a hugely successful brand identity.

His on-air personality is just that...and its easy for Stewart and anyone else to knock his stock-picking ability from where they sit. Try running a show and disclosing all of your opinions on the spot...it can't be easy and plenty of other really smart guys on Wall Street have gotten it wrong (i.e. pretty much everyone except John Paulson and a few others).

BULLSHIT! He has a responsibility and is somewhat no different that Madoff(sp?) IMO.
He's lied to the public and admitted (behind closed doors) that he's manipulated funds ,etc. For MSNBC to paint a picture that Cramer is the stock (In Cramer We Trust) God is utterly stupid and irresponsible when it comes to your company's credibility and brand.

Of course they all may play the stock manipulation game, but JS held his ass accountable for being the "expert" he is. For him to take CEO's word for face value is what ME as a complete novice could do. He's supposed to be the expert that should use the DD and research that I may not know how to do when reporting his OPINIONS.

Some rely on Cramer for insight instead of his circle jerking with corporate CEO's who'd give him the best case scenarios of the respective company(ies).

I applaud Jon Stewart and Cramer can GFH!

:spock:

Are you seriously comparing stealing $50 billion dollars through a decade plus hoax to being wrong on a few stock picks? That's one of the most stunningly stupid quotes I've ever seen on here.

Behind closed doors? It was an interview on his free website. Anyways, that's not the reason Stewart even had him on. It was to put a face on his CNBC attack, and Cramer apparently decided it was better to just sit back and take it rather than fight back and look even more like a rich Wall Street fat cat that normal people demonize.

So would it be better for the public to not have access to his show, including his opinions and updates on stocks, interviews with company management, discussion of trends in the market, etc?

Since he's wrong occassionally and you think he should be off the air, we might as well get rid of WSJ, Barrons, CNBC, Bloomberg, Fortune, Money, etc.

Are you really arguing that the public would be better served if these outlets were no longer around, thus putting retail investors even more in the dark?

I don't think anyone was mad at Cramer being wrong. It's some of the things he's been wrong about while simultaneously knowing the shenanigans contributing to them being wrong.