So who is "knowingly manipulating the margin" and how?

Do you think Cramer is knowingly giving false information or lying about his stock opinions?

Do you think we should do away with all stock opinion shows, magazines, etc?

Please clue me in if I misunderstood your post.

No, I don't think we should do away with all shows of that nature by any means and I'm not sure how you could have inferred that. BUT, as was so eloquently pointed out by Stewart, it's not a ****ing game. We don't need the bells and whistles and pretty shiny objects that amuse the masses.

Do I think Cramer knowingly gave false information or lied about his opinions? That is kind of a tough one to call. Do I think a hedge fund manager knew EXACTLY how entangled the situation had become due to practices like credit default swapping? Hell yes. Do I think that anyone with that much firsthand knowledge of finance and economics should have seen the conflict of interest created by allowing banks to immediately turn over their mortgages to holding companies to securitize, effectively washing their hands of default risk? Hell yes. So did he purposely lie about his picks? Maybe not. Should he have known that the bottom was going to drop out and big time? Absolutely.

Cramer himself admitted their demographic, or at least their goal demographic, was those that were new to financial markets. Thus my reference to the margin.

There are a few things he does. When he recommends a "Buy" on a stock, he waits a week before he actually buys it (and yes, he does buy it for better or worse at the end of that week). Same thing with a "Sell." He waits.

I think he's pretty transparent about what he recommends, and he isn't doing it for his own portfolio. It's for his charitable trust.

I really don't see how Cramer is any different than the guys on "Fast Money" or "Options Action." They all get stuff wrong. At least Cramer owns up to it when he does.

In hindsight, yeah, he should have known the bottom was going to fall out at some point, and I'm sure he thought it would at some point. But not even Buffett can know for sure what direction the market will turn, and like I said in an earlier post, EVERYONE got this one wrong.

So yeah, Cramer should certainly have known what was going to happen, but you can lump everyone in that group, including almost every investment bank, hedge fund, mutual fund, etc. People should definitely be held accountable at some level, but Cramer is not near the top of my personal list.

It just seems to me that we're kind of picking on Cramer here simply because he makes his calls every night on a public forum. I guess that is his own fault, and he should have expected to take heat when the market turns like this, but I don't it's truly warranted.

Don't get me wrong, he is no where near the top of my list. Just another in a long line...

As far as the market turning, many people have been voicing their fears since the late 90's. Any insider had to know. You and I could have never known the extent because most of these activities were off balance sheet. The people that run the various financial market instruments knew though. They were so leveraged and their debt instruments were so entangled, that anyone on the inside had to know that one blow would bring the straw house down.

Even if he doesn't know all the finance goings, Jon Stewart is a good and fair critic of network TV. And I think that's what the interview stressed for me. An honest discussion about the role of the media and journalism.

Its wasnt exactly honest because Stewart only attacked this issue after guys from CNBC dared to speak out against Obama financial policies. All of his criticisms of the network are valid, to be sure, but all of them could have been made months and even years before now. It wasnt until Santelli and Cramer dared criticize Obama that this was raised. That isnt honest criticism, thats reactionary gotcha-ism to change the subject.

And it wasnt exactly fair because if this was pointed out to Stewart, that he was essentially playing an attack dog for the administration while criticizing the ethics of others, he would play his game about being a comedy show and not being part of media or journalism. The clown outfit tends to come off and on whenever it suits him.

I like Stewart for the most part, but this is one of his more blatant examples of wanting to have it both ways.

Boris, your comments make me think that it would have been really better if someone had checked CNBC before this.

And on the note of business and journalism, here are a few people commenting on the issue.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/video/mo...13032009&seg=2

he's creepy

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/iXlDrU7AVxA&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/iXlDrU7AVxA&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

i remember when they used to do comedy on that show, and not just shill for the left

i love meltdowns

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

Of course it would have. There are very valid points to be made, many of which were made in the interview.

But if this was an issue that bothered Stewart even half as much as he acted like it did, there were plenty of times to raise these points. Such as when CNBC began running the In Cramer We Trust promos that seemed to so outrage Jon, just to throw out such an example.

Instead, there wasnt a peep about any of this until it could be used to deflect criticism CNBC made against Obama policies. That kind of transparency tends to defeat the purpose, assuming people actually pay attention.

Sadly, few do, so we get things like Robert Gibbs snickering about the interview, even though Cramer was pretty pro-Obama until his recent criticism.

Worse yet, picking on CNBC is like tapping the head of the fat kid in duck duck goose. Why not respond to the Warren Buffet criticism of Obama policies, just to name someone with a little more stature? Or if the financial issues and deception really concerned Stewart that much, where are the clips of Barney Frank propping up Freddie and Fannie the way Cramer did with Bear Sterns before it collapsed? Doesnt he have more influence in whats going on than Cramer or anyone else at CNBC?

How could someone possibly be more outraged by the coverage of a TV network than they are by the people who helped form the policies that got us to this point? Because its a handy way to deflect and change the subject.

Pay no attention to these other issues, lets focus on the booyah guy from Mad Money. And watch your back, Suze Orman, we havent forgotten you.

Way to parrot what the right wing talking heads have been saying. Do you have any original thoughts of your own on the subject?

BS. They were in bed with these wall streeters and were told by the CEO that this is gospel and reported that as gospel to the public. No questioning the motives of the CEO? fact checking? telling the public this info comes from the CEO, take it with a grain of salt? Did CNBC ever pause and think maybe, just maybe the CEO's were talking to them only because they were interested in seeing their stock price go up and were feeding you BS?

Lot of great points in this thread. A couple of prefaces. I am a huge fan of Jon Stewart. I am a TOTAL layman when it comes to the economy. So be nice...:)

I thought Cramer came off as well as he could in the unedited version of the interview. I really think he deserves kudos for sacking up and facing Stewart and the angry public face to face. Whether you agree with his politics/agenda or not Stewart is a formidable foe. American's want someone to blame and Cramer (perhaps unwittingly) has put his face right in the middle of it.

I think stewart's point is an entertainment show about money is a dangerous dangerous thing. Seems he was calling for them to be held to a much higher standard, to be more like investigative reporters. They do possess the knowledge, experience and access to really dig deep into financial matters.

Cramer's point is that if he did that he would no longer have an audience.

Does a financial show (even one intended more as entertainment) have a greater responsibility to investigate deeper into it's content than a satirical show? Yes. But, really, this is hardly the problem with the economy. The economy is in the toilet because the checks and balances in place to safeguard it went terribly awry. Something is broken there and it has little to do with the average Joe's investments based on anything they gleened incorrectly from financial shows. We have to figure out how SO MANY shady, economy killing deals were able to move through the financial systems without red flags being raised and safeguard against them in the future. Someone HAD to know this would happen eventually...

So in the end, I think Stewart is right but really barking up the wrong tree. Average Joe's were going to lose their shirts regardless of anything CNBC recommended.