Political Discussions
Did Jon Stewart just ruin Jim Cramer's career?
Posted by satijournal • 3/13/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: Economy, politics, republican
Check out the interview of Jim Cramer on the Daily Show. He's supposed to be a financial expert, yet he failed to see the warning signs and was complicit in unethical activities when he was a hedge fund manager. Who's going to trust him any more?
www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/13/jim-cramer-on-daily-show_n_174558.html
User Comments
-
I watched these episodes and seen the footage with Cramer on Stewart. It is clear to me if anything Cramer is ruining his own career, which I don't think is really going to happen. The thing is Stewart has way more witty writers on his side and Cramer can't compete with it, and from that he looks like a silly person.-
I see a lot of comments on the internet about Stewart's writers. This is all good, but yesterday had nothing to do with his writers. It was a concerned citizen voicing his muted outrage. With or without funny writers, Stewart is a good interviewer who fears only one thing: missing an opportunity to get to the truth.
Yesterday we didn't see a funny man with witty writers versus an economist. We saw an honest man versus a dishonest clown. -
@ omiller - well said! You're absolutely right on !
-
-
Yeah, I think Cramer is doing himself in. But like Liberty said, his career is probably not over - which is a sad, sad, statement of our current mindset. -
Stewart ratings up 20% or so, while Cramer's is down 20% or so.
Stewart was aiming at CNBC as whole more than just singling out Cramer for his missteps. Everyone makes mistakes, but it makes you wonder how close the relationship is between some financial pundits/commentators and Wall Street.-
It could be that in bad times, shows like the Daily Show will gain in popularity since people have more free time and need a laugh while shows like Mad Money will lose because people don't have confidence in the markets and aren't interested in investing.
-
True.
Alcohol and gun sales are up! -
Nobody at the treasury dept. to run the ATF?
-
-
All publicity is good publicity. The guy is probably likely to make more money out of being "the guy who gets things wrong" than he did when he was supposed to be an expert provided he plays it right.-
So CBNC can come out with a new show, "Don't Do What Jim Cramer Says"
-
If I were him I'd pitch a show taking Jon Stewart's advice where he tries to uncover the truth and if CEOs are lying he exposes that...people would watch that...especially now! Whether or not he's capable of presenting something like that...
-
-
I haven't had a chance to see it yet, but it must have been remarkable considering the interesting comments I heard in the first hour of the Diane Rehm Show today (wamu.org/programs/dr/), especially since the show doesn't usually bother with what the talking heads are saying. (She does a political roundup every Friday.) The guests were talking about much more than this one guy. One even spoke of a larger cultural shift.
-
CNN's recap:
Part 1:
EDIT: cannot find direct link any longer, but you can find it on CNN "Stewart Slams CNBC"
Part 2:
www.cnn.com/video/#/video/showbiz/2009/03/13/romans.cramer.stewart.showdown... -
-
I'm sure it will be on hulu.com too. I just can't watch video on my antique desktop.
-
Oh yes Cramer was made a fool of... Really really badly. Cramer cannot keep up with Stewart at all.
-
-
-
I watched the Daily Show this evening and they did the interview. Funny how you can see it first on the internet. But anyway, I remember years ago seeing stories on default credit swaps and how bad mortgages were being sold in packages to foreign investors, but those stories never really gained any traction since the market was rallying and nobody wanted to be the party killer. The news media should have pursued it, though, and forced the SEC to take some action. Or congress should have taken some action. The entire system of checks and balances failed with the deregulation of the past 10 years.
-
Isn't the SEC itself a problem? From what little I've read about it and can recall, I believe that it was not only understaffed, but also had only or mainly lawyers, no hotshot economists and MBAs.
-
Here's an interesting article:
At the S.E.C., which has come under fire from Congress for its apparent lack of vigilance in the subprime mess, such tensions between frontline investigators and the politically appointed commissioners to whom they report have become commonplace. Former senior enforcement officials say Cox has used his control over the commission’s calendar to delay major cases and water down others. Cox and other commissioners have shifted the agency’s focus away from strong enforcement action against big public companies and Wall Street firms, instead emphasizing what S.E.C. lawyers consider petty-fraud cases, such as small Ponzi schemes. Penalties against companies, individuals, and brokerage firms have sunk from a high of $1.5 billion in 2005 to $507 million last year.
...
Cox did not accomplish these changes on his own. Internal agency politics, critics say, played a major role, with Cox’s Republican colleagues, particularly Paul Atkins, pressing him to roll back enforcement and rein in the division’s independence. Beginning in late 2007, the White House, which nominates S.E.C. commissioners, helped clear the way for retrenchment in enforcement by delaying the replacement of two Democratic commissioners whose terms had ended. From January through July 2008, the commission had just three members, all Republican. This gave Atkins and Kathleen Casey de facto veto power over the more moderate chairman.
www.portfolio.com/executives/features/2008/09/18/Profile-of-SEC-Chief-Chris...
The fact is, the department was politicized, as were all agencies under the Bush administration.
-
-
From what I understand MSNBC is now trying to be all hush-hush about the interview, and the other co-founder of the show (street.com?) has resigned.
Oops. -
I can't believe it takes Commedy Central to break relevant news! Really an open indictment on the news media in general.
-
What made the interview compelling was how Stewart was always one step ahead of Cramer - whenever Cramer gave a half-hearted "mea culpa", pleading that he was a genuine guy who was trying his best and just made some honest mistakes, Stewart just said "roll clip 2-12" and showed Cramer acting in a manner that was consistent with the rottenness amongst those at the the core of the financial system. In effect he was showing Cramer (and by extension CNBC) should have acted whenever CEOs lied to him about their companies' financial positions - i.e. aggressively bring forth evidence that contradicts what they have just said.-
wow, journalists can do that?
-
-
It seems like he did it to himself...he wasn't the main subject of the original segment but he seemed to jump at the opportunity to get some publicity by defending CNBC...If you're going to draw attention to yourself and defend your credibility and integrity, you have to actually have credibility and integrity to begin with!
-
It's actually a little unfair to Cramer. He's in the business of recommending stocks to buy or sell. He's not a reporter. That said, I used to subscribe to his service and his portfolio was always in negative territory, so I didn't put much stock in his stock picks.
-
What resounded for me about the whole exchange was the excoriating critique of CNBC's mission. Cramer may not be a reporter, but a stock-buying "expert", but others on the CNBC payroll *are* reporters, and they should have sounded the alarm on regulatory issues much sooner. There could have been more realistic talk about bubbles in general and dodgy securities issues.
What it amounts to right now, though, is a lot of coulda-woulda-shoulda. Jon Stewart hit the nail on the head in his interview, without a doubt. But where does that leave us?
I'm just wondering whether anything will change at CNBC. -
When a business show be comes a pundit show we also have some responsibility not to watch it or take it as advice. If you watched the intro in Cramer's show you'd really have a hard time thinking was serious business. I don't know how much culpability he had in that I don't know if he is considered a business journalist or if By profession and authority he is merely a talking head.
The take down of all networks choosing to entertain us instead of give us real news happens when we prefer real news. It sounds like they dumped truth for entertainment because that is what people wanted to watch.
It was obvious from his show he really didn't give a rats ass about helping people navigate the mess. -
News has become more entertainment oriented in the last decade. Fox is a prime example, and unfortunately others copy them. First the Fox newscasters were getting all spackled up with makeup (like Bill O'Rielly) now all the channels look like they hired Hustler's make-up artists.
-
So in reality it is the people who watch it that are somewhat responsible.
If people would watch the real thing as eagerly as they watch the not so real thing that is what the people would get.
-
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
