Jump to content

Cramer vs Stewart


terryowens__
 Share

Recommended Posts

People are mad at CNBC because it's the only network where greedy bankers are treated like victims. They were cheerleading this financial fiasco until the recession got bad just like they did with the dot-com bubble in the late 90s (their ratings really plunged after that).

I don't understand why Cramer showed up. What did he expect? Maybe he still doesn't realize that Wall Street folks have no credibility whatsoever these days.

That azz whoopin was brutal... On some Frost/ Nixon shyt...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cramer had to know what he was getting himself into. I like Stewart but there were points in that interview where he was becoming the blustering, overly serious talking head that he has made his reputation lampooning over the years.

Neither came off all that great, IMO.

I would agree that this wasn't comedy gold for Stewart but the subject matter is getting harder to laugh at these days. I think it's a sad commentary that many of the hard questions of our day are being raised by a comedy show. Mainstream media outlets have abdicated their responsibility in these matters because the corporations that run them are in bed with too many of the principals behind this whole house of cards. Stewart's point about the two markets was dead on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Stewart made some good points, and I understand that CNBC is seen as sycophantic towards banks and the stock market - but he clearly doesn't understand economics or the financial system. I don't know, I assume this **** has happened for a while, but I don't think that Stewart is right in saying everyone saw it coming. Some people, Peter Schiff (I think) predicted it 2 years ago, but I don't think anyone was saying 10 years ago that 2008 is our time of reckoning.

I think Stewart is right to be indignant, but I also think that the financial system has had a certain amount of shenanigans even in more stable times. I broadly agree with Stewart in the end, that we have drifted towards a sense of entitlement and easy money, but we are going to need the mechanism of Wall Street to get out of this. But at the end of the day, I don't blame Cramer or CNBC, but I do blame certain individuals and an attitude that everyone was complicit in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Stewart made some good points, and I understand that CNBC is seen as sycophantic towards banks and the stock market - but he clearly doesn't understand economics or the financial system. I don't know, I assume this **** has happened for a while, but I don't think that Stewart is right in saying everyone saw it coming. Some people, Peter Schiff (I think) predicted it 2 years ago, but I don't think anyone was saying 10 years ago that 2008 is our time of reckoning.

I think Stewart is right to be indignant, but I also think that the financial system has had a certain amount of shenanigans even in more stable times. I broadly agree with Stewart in the end, that we have drifted towards a sense of entitlement and easy money, but we are going to need the mechanism of Wall Street to get out of this. But at the end of the day, I don't blame Cramer or CNBC, but I do blame certain individuals and an attitude that everyone was complicit in.

Essentially, it seems that he was hammering Cramer and CNBC for being wrong. Which is bound to happen when your job is to give an opinion on TV every night. I don't see how anyone could blame Cramer or CNBC for the crisis. It's like blaming Chris Mortensen for the Dallas Cowboys' bad season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Essentially, it seems that he was hammering Cramer and CNBC for being wrong. Which is bound to happen when your job is to give an opinion on TV every night. I don't see how anyone could blame Cramer or CNBC for the crisis. It's like blaming Chris Mortensen for the Dallas Cowboys' bad season.

1.) Mortensen isn't in the position Cramer's in. Cramer is telling people what to do with their money, and by claiming that he's a guy they can trust (Of course legally, they still put up that Jim Cramer's opinion are just that, and CNBC has no liability.). The point Jon was trying to make was that CNBC is all buddy buddy with people who lied about that their status, and caused people to lose a lot of money.

Mortensen may be hated on for having somebody lose a fantasy game... maybe.

2.) He's not blaming them for the crisis. He's blaming them for misleading people.

3.) This all started because Santelli bashed Obama, and Stewart wanted to show CNBC is not a trustworthy venue for financial news.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1.) Mortensen isn't in the position Cramer's in. Cramer is telling people what to do with their money, and by claiming that he's a guy they can trust (Of course legally, they still put up that Jim Cramer's opinion are just that, and CNBC has no liability.). The point Jon was trying to make was that CNBC is all buddy buddy with people who lied about that their status, and caused people to lose a lot of money.

Mortensen may be hated on for having somebody lose a fantasy game... maybe.

2.) He's not blaming them for the crisis. He's blaming them for misleading people.

3.) This all started because Santelli bashed Obama, and Stewart wanted to show CNBC is not a trustworthy venue for financial news.

No one is telling you to listen to Cramer. As Stewart pointed out, he spends time throwing cows through his legs. If you base your entire financial plan off of Jim Cramer that can't be good. All news outlets position themselves as in the know, why else would you watch them? What is more, it IS an opinion program, unlike Brian Williams or Walter Cronkite whose aim is objective reporting.

He was blaming them for misleading people, but then also insinuating that Cramer was complicit in the crisis and his inaction, along with others at CNBC, is as good as helping start the thing. Yes, they are a network that positions themselves as an insider voice in trading, which makes them both partially responsible (I guess) but also a convenient public face for what has happened.

I was a bit unimpressed with Stewart's criticism of CNBC. As Gritz pointed out, they give their opinion every day on something as big as the world economy, they are clearly going to be wrong. Cramer isn't a right wing ideologue, so I don't think there is anything pious about the left getting angry at him. I think the biggest problem with saying CNBC is not a trustworthy venue for financial news is that there really isn't anything that is right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one is telling you to listen to Cramer. As Stewart pointed out, he spends time throwing cows through his legs. If you base your entire financial plan off of Jim Cramer that can't be good. All news outlets position themselves as in the know, why else would you watch them? What is more, it IS an opinion program, unlike Brian Williams or Walter Cronkite whose aim is objective reporting.

He was blaming them for misleading people, but then also insinuating that Cramer was complicit in the crisis and his inaction, along with others at CNBC, is as good as helping start the thing. Yes, they are a network that positions themselves as an insider voice in trading, which makes them both partially responsible (I guess) but also a convenient public face for what has happened.

I was a bit unimpressed with Stewart's criticism of CNBC. As Gritz pointed out, they give their opinion every day on something as big as the world economy, they are clearly going to be wrong. Cramer isn't a right wing ideologue, so I don't think there is anything pious about the left getting angry at him. I think the biggest problem with saying CNBC is not a trustworthy venue for financial news is that there really isn't anything that is right now.

Wouldn't it be more akin to your bank telling you to put your savings in their bank long term because if is safe and secure and will in a 2% return. And then using that money in a way that is different reckless way than how they said?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't it be more akin to your bank telling you to put your savings in their bank long term because if is safe and secure and will in a 2% return. And then using that money in a way that is different reckless way than how they said?

I think I get your point, I'm not saying that people aren't too blame, but I don't think Cramer is that guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mean someone who openly admitted to manipulating the market?

Edit: I don't know what you mean by manipulating the market. Do you mean doing legal things which don't look smart or illegal things?

Of course he manipulated the market, why would he adhere to a bunch of rules people are projecting into the past? Plus it's easy to conflate Cramer as hedge fund manager, where he probably took unnecessary risks, and what Stewart went after him for originally, which was giving bad advice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edit: I don't know what you mean by manipulating the market. Do you mean doing legal things which don't look smart or illegal things?

Of course he manipulated the market, why would he adhere to a bunch of rules people are projecting into the past? Plus it's easy to conflate Cramer as hedge fund manager, where he probably took unnecessary risks, and what Stewart went after him for originally, which was giving bad advice.

He all but admitted to illegal acts to manipulate stock prices.

What Stewart went after him for was about having objectivity and journalism 101. If you are going to be on a news network supposedly reporting on financial situations and information, how about at least doing some fact checking instead of taking what a CEO is saying at face value. From that interview with John Stewart, one could surmise that all Jim Cramer did was the same things he was doing as a fund manager where people he had ties to could benefit.

Bottom line is a news organization should have the public's best interest in mind. In other words, CNBC had the chance to do a really huge public benefit and possibly avert or at the very least, lessen the blow of this financial crisis, but instead, they decided to be the puppet of Wall Street(and I am referring to the Wall Street that engages in the other market that the public isn't privvy to) and collectively blow smoke up the public's a$$

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I caught this interview last night. I might not like John Stewart as a comedian but seeing him lay into this scumbag brought me immense satisfaction.

Media pundits deserve every tongue lashing they get. I would have laughed if Stewart had kicked him in the face at the end of the interview, THATS comedy i could believe in. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bottom line is a news organization should have the public's best interest in mind. In other words, CNBC had the chance to do a really huge public benefit and possibly avert or at the very least, lessen the blow of this financial crisis, but instead, they decided to be the puppet of Wall Street(and I am referring to the Wall Street that engages in the other market that the public isn't privvy to) and collectively blow smoke up the public's a$$

I would say Cramer did a better job than the CNBC network overall when he told his viewers to SELL @ Dow 10K and convert any positions into cash if that cash would be needed in the next 5 years back in September.

GE can't ethically run a network where the anchors bash other companies' stock prices. Geez, is that so hard to understand?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...