Jon Stewart vs. Jim Cramer

[Chiefless]

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.

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by Chiefless

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.

The center of the issue is that Jon is just a hipper, funnier, Andy Rooney. Andy has made his bones off being disgruntled at ****ling [edit: Guess I'll go with 'mildly distracting" because someone decided that n!gg is inapproprriate even in the instance of n!ggling] aspects of culture and responding with nothing more constructive that "did you ever notice? . . "

Jon has all sorts of observations on how other people are doing things wrong, Begala and Carlson don't debate the right way, Cramer doesn't talk about finances the right way, Jimmy Dean puts too many chocolate chips in their pancake on a stick. But he's got nothing to offer beyond "you're doing it wrong and you're a dick."

[Silock]

Originally Posted by Chiefless

They do possess the knowledge, experience and access to really dig deep into financial matters.

There are laws against them possessing any more knowledge than the average person. Just because someone works on Wall Street or on CNBC doesn't (or shouldn't, if no one is breaking the law) give them the right to more information about stocks and business than anyone else has access to.

[Chiefless]

Originally Posted by Silock

There are laws against them possessing any more knowledge than the average person. Just because someone works on Wall Street or on CNBC doesn't (or shouldn't, if no one is breaking the law) give them the right to more information about stocks and business than anyone else has access to.

I get that. To back peddle a little, isn't the information that's (as you say) available to everyone easier for them to obtain? For example, I doubt I could have gotten a meeting with the CEO of Bear Stearns. Further, I don't even know where to look for access to companies' financial reports, assuming I could understand them. That's kind of what I was getting at...

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by Chiefless

I get that. To back peddle a little, isn't the information that's (as you say) available to everyone easier for them to obtain? For example, I doubt I could have gotten a meeting with the CEO of Bear Stearns. Further, I don't even know where to look for access to companies' financial reports, assuming I could understand them. That's kind of what I was getting at...

Sure people in power don't want to answer hard questions. So they pick someone to give them softballs. Been done that way forever and it won't change. But, you want to call yourself a journalist behave like one.

You want to be an entertainer, act like one? Then call yourself one.

[Chiefless]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

Sure people in power don't want to answer hard questions. So they pick someone to give them softballs. Been done that way forever and it won't change. But, you want to call yourself a journalist behave like one.

You want to be an entertainer, act like one? Then call yourself one.

Interestingly enuf, The same can be said for both Cramer AND Stewart. Stewart set that interview up as tho he were a journalist and Cramer insists he is an entertainer. The lines got blurred in that interview somewhat.

My whole point is this is a non issue if the economy doesn't collapse. I could give two squirts about a TV personality and his bad stock picks. I want some form of justice for those responsible for the collapse of the economy. I'm pretty sure some questionable practices were taking place for years that lead to this. Whatever those practices were they need to get them reined in and punish people for stealing the public's money.

I'm ranting now about things I only half-way understand, but it seems to me that these problems can be traced back to actual PEOPLE doing bad things. Please, by all means respectfully correct me if I'm wrong.

As much as I like to watch Jon Stewart bat around mice, CNBC is likely not guilty of anything more than incompetence.

[Silock]

Originally Posted by Chiefless

I get that. To back peddle a little, isn't the information that's (as you say) available to everyone easier for them to obtain? For example, I doubt I could have gotten a meeting with the CEO of Bear Stearns. Further, I don't even know where to look for access to companies' financial reports, assuming I could understand them. That's kind of what I was getting at...

No, you can't get that meeting, but it has to be done in public, and not behind closed doors.

Companies' financial reports are available via quick google searches, or if you're like me, via a link on my etrade account.