Jon Stewart vs. Jim Cramer

[Boris The Great]

Originally Posted by Jenson71

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

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.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by Boris The Great

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.

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?

[Boris The Great]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

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 CEOs were talking to them only because they were interested in seeing their stock price go up and were feeding you BS?

What are you talking about? Where did I say none of those things happened? When did I say CNBC didnt do anything wrong?

I said there are a lot of valid points to be made against CNBC. And I said if Stewart really cared about any of it, he wouldnt have been completely silent on the issue until some CNBC names started questioning Obama.

Try reading, then responding. In that order. It may help.