That is a shame, but the story is posted on CNN and hopfeully other network (never looked), so hopefully more people will see it.Dr Spaceman said:
And his response was incredibly dickish
Poll: Stewart VS Cramer
- Thread starter deletemeplease107
- Start date
Recommended Videos
And his response was incredibly dickish
Stewart got to show clips.
Cramer didn't.
You try winning an argument under those conditions. It was not even a debate. A debate has a back and forth, point counterpoint if you will. Of course he got creamed. Stewart had a point to make, and in many ways, it is a valid point. But I feel it is unfair to demonize someone-- even though he asked cramer not to personalize it, it was quite personal-- without showing ANYTHING from the other point of view. Cramer did not get to play a clip where he was jumping up and down screaming for the heads of certain financial bankers, and especially, the heads of the federal reserve. All of the heads of everyone at the federal reserve, which is just as federal as federal express.
Cramer didn't.
You try winning an argument under those conditions. It was not even a debate. A debate has a back and forth, point counterpoint if you will. Of course he got creamed. Stewart had a point to make, and in many ways, it is a valid point. But I feel it is unfair to demonize someone-- even though he asked cramer not to personalize it, it was quite personal-- without showing ANYTHING from the other point of view. Cramer did not get to play a clip where he was jumping up and down screaming for the heads of certain financial bankers, and especially, the heads of the federal reserve. All of the heads of everyone at the federal reserve, which is just as federal as federal express.
I think you misunderstand what was truly going on here Stewart was debating Cramer, but at the same time it was as if the average joe that is every regular person who isn't an insider and in the back rooms where all the secret deals are happening was going toe to toe with the corporate tycoons and not only did he tell, no... not only did WE tell them off we did it in a way that really mattered that may sound a little silly but thats how it makes me feelCheeze_Pavilion said:
You have to understand how Cramer got started. Because CNBC labeled him as one of their, "Front men fighting for your financial future." In the beginning, Cramer embraced that. He embraced it even when he was basically recommending bad trades and bad financial practices. Other people on CNBC have followed Cramer's early lead into what I call the modern "shock jock financial show" of cable networks (this goes for some of the dunderheads at Bloomberg as well).Cheeze_Pavilion said:
What's funny is that the four clips I saw that John brought to Cramer's attention are now the core points for Joe Kernan, Carl Quintanilla and Dylan Ratigan. They are the ones suggesting financial investments using your personal savings and retirement plans. Cramer's the one who suggested under-selling, selling short, buying junk bonds and pushing bad day trading in his show up to June of last year. He kept backing up all his CNBC partners' assertions that the market was fine and nothing bad was going to happen. He played up their bad advice by sounding positive about it, so even if he's not suggesting you invest your money on his picks, he's encouraging you to take the advice of the rest of the people at CNBC.
Cramer may be trying to make up for it now, and I think he managed to get that out. Stewart's main point was that Cramer led and then backed up this insane charge by CNBC, and his continued endorsement of the cable network is a testament to all the bad things that go on at CNBC. Cramer admitted to it like constantly throughout the program (the uncut one, anyway - there's an uncut interview out there on the Daily Show blog that goes way longer than the one aired).
If anything, Cramer's reply tells me that he's utterly remorseless about how he's handled his career and who he endorses, even though he knows its wrong. And for that, even though I was slightly bored with this interview near the end, I still think Cramer got what was coming to him. Someone should have done this earlier in his career, so the idiot would have come to his senses somewhat sooner. Cramer may have changed his show due to the financial slump in the last five months, but leading up to that, he was part of the problem. His passive, reactive tactics are all really bulls**t, and his reply is pretty much, "Yadda yadda yadda, I gave bad advice in the past and didn't call out people who gave bad advice in the present, and still won't condemn the actions of bad investors ... well, except maybe the people who sell short the market. Yeah, I have a beef with them, yeah."
Pfffft.
EDIT:
And yeah, as someone pointed out, the reason Cramer was there is that John criticized the network as a whole, and Cramer took offense. Cramer wanted justice for CNBC. He took the Daily Show as a serious cable news program for some idiotic reason, so John invited him on to show him JUST HOW SERIOUS he can be. It's not my fault or John's fault that Cramer made the mistake of showing up - I find the morons on TV show up when John calls them out, and get what's coming to them.
Stewart invited him to defend himself, what would you suggest? NOT invite him and carry on slagging him? Stewart gave him the opportunity to defend himself, and what more Stewart made it damn clear before hand than his original criticism was at CNBC not merely Cramer, starting with Rick Santelli, .Cheeze_Pavilion said:
Furthermore your talk about retirement stash is disingenuous because people who invested in AAA pensions and retirement plans thought they had placed their money in the safest possible investment. [http://www.crisisofcredit.com/]The speculators on the market however used this capital to play their games and the fact that CNBC never reported this little tidbit of information - thats what Stewart was calling them out on. He made that VERY clear.
umm.. because it was CRAMER [http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/jon-stewart-jim-cramer-fck-you] who brought up the subject in the first place? Stewart was attacking CNBC in general at the time, and included Cramer along with everyone else, but it was CRAMER that took it personally and set the whole thing off.
And the whole Cramer showing clips hammering the CEOs...whats that got to do with this? The point is that NO one at CNBC actually pointed out the fact that the companies were playing fast and loose with other people's money. Cramer could hammer the CEOs till he was blue in the face, but did you ever hear him actually criticize the way these companies handled their customers money? No.
In response to why bad people show up on these shows, they generally believe themselves to be right.
Which is why it's so enjoyable to watch them systematically torn apart!
Which is why it's so enjoyable to watch them systematically torn apart!
What The Daily Show needs to do is go back to airing that warning about how the show is not real, none of the people are real journalists and that none of the arguments are really well thought out. They still run that at the beginning of the show on certain Internet replays and in other countries. They need to run it now so people like Jim Cramer, politicians, morning talk show hosts and people who are like the two boobs from Crossfire don't confuse it with a real news program and understand that it's a PARODY.
Then maybe John won't run rampant on their heads and cause these imagined feuds between Comedy Central and other serious (snicker) cable news networks.
Then maybe John won't run rampant on their heads and cause these imagined feuds between Comedy Central and other serious (snicker) cable news networks.
Sorry Stewart DID invite Rick Santelli but he refused. So Stewart continued with the intially prepared peice on CNBC, after THAT Cramer decided to get hot under the collar.Cheeze_Pavilion said:
Umm NO. He didnt move to a clip seven weeks earlier, he first move to clip a few days earlier wit Cramer talking about how happy he was with Bear being at 69. And Just so that Cramer didnt come out and so he wasnt *suggesting* people buy Bear (never mind the fact that he did in fact give his approval of bear) Stewart then pulled out the statement by Cramer from seven weeks earlier. Its not much of a red herring if Cramer was approving of Bear stocks approximately 5 to 6 days before it tanked, so your argument doesnt hold water.
This is irrelevant on a number of issues, firstly:
1. Stewart had NOT singled out Cramer until Cramer decided to call him out on it. Stewart was criticizing a network THAT CLAIMED FINANCIAL EXPERTISE, and was critical of the mortgage plan by the white house; and yet not only failed to actually report on the goings on off these companies, but also cheered them on! Then when things went belly up, the likes of Rick Santelli began to attack Home owners who may loose their homes through no fault of their own and pensioners who have lost their savings.
2. The Whole Business of the other Networks reporting it - I am sorry did NBC , CBS or the others actually have someone rant on TV about "loser" home owners? No. Did they put out such statements as "IN Cramer We Trust?" No. Did they claim to be the standard Bearers of Financial News and advise on TV? No.
3. So this everyone to blame business is a nice way of saying no one is to blame, and CNBC can go back to doing business as usual.
4. And why the hell has the Daily Show have to report on these matters? Its a 30 minute Comedy Show! If the News media takes its ques from a comedy show then we are all in serious trouble.. Trying to blame the Daily show for not reporting on the meltdown is like trying to blame the fire brigade for the fire started by a chimpanzee with a flame thrower.
So if the BIGGEST AND MOST POWERFUL networks in the US couldnt spot this, Stewart should have? Wow. You sure have a strange way at looking at it.
Firstly he DIDNT single out Cramer, you know that and I know that, so stop trying to make it look like he did. Cramer became the face of it since he attacked Stewart directly, so Stewart reciprocated in kind. As for the rest of your statements read above. as for the whole war thing: YES Stewart HAD reported it, way back he had called on Jospeh Stiglitz's remark on the costs of the war, (The whole three trillion dollar figure) and had called out the then Bush White house about it, I fail to see what more a 30miniute comedy show could have done.
If I recall correctly The Daily Show began the "Whole Clusterfuck to the Poor house" segments well in the mid to early part of 2008, as the crisis was just beginning. So your wrong about him not raising the alarm. He did what he could with the information he had, and within the constraints of his time and resources. The flip side si also true..why didnt CNBC report on it? The supposed Leader in Financial news? Whats sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
The whole presentation bit and Flash bit wasnt even available until after the sub-prime crisis was well embedded into the financial system, so this is very much a man of straw argument.
Umm..did Stewart claim Financial Expertise? No. Did he go about dispensing advise on Stocks? No. Did he put the blame on the pesnioners and homeowners like Santelli. No. Stop trying to blame Stewart for what CNBC and the rest of the networks failed to do.
[/quote]
He did. He had. No one listened. Now it becomes a convenient matter for some people to develop selective amnesia and forget about the whole thing, and then go on TV rant about the evils of big government spending, the "coming of socialism" and the attempt to save those "loser" homeowners. Why dont you take it up with Rick Santelli? It was HE that Stewart wanted on the show, and refused to appear, and now your trying to accuse Stewart of bad faith? Wow.
Do you really think that people who have extra money to be playing the stock market with are getting their investment advice from "Mad Money?" People with that much money are rich as balls, and if they don't have professional agents doing their investing for them, they are themselves exactly that kind of expert and are operating based on their own expertise. People who get their investment advice from a television show are not people who have extra money to be dicking around in the stock market with.Cheeze_Pavilion said:
Just because the show tells people that it's for people with spare money to be throwing around doesn't mean that it isn't exactly how people use it, and it doesn't mean that Cramer and CNBC isn't completely aware that it's how people use it. That would be like the Q-Tip people putting shavings of steel in the tips of their sticks because you're not supposed to use them to clean your ears.
Umm..because he didnt? the piece was about CNBC is GENERAL not Cramer in particular. Stewart didnt air the piece AFTER Cramer atacked him it was BEFORE this whole thing even began.Cheeze_Pavilion said:
Umm.. YES. [http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=164178&title=Broken-Arrow]
Whats really classy is trying to make Stewart look like a bad guy when Santelli goes on TV and rants about looser homeowners, and when Stewart calls him out on it, he chooses not to appear on his show. Then Stewart runs a piece on CNBC and Cramer decides to become thier champion.
So what are you saying here? That NO ONE should criticize Santelli and CNBC? Nice. The point is that Stewart has had the guts to call them out on their crap and you defend them and attack him? Beautiful.
Other networks dont make claims of godhood for their presenters and being the experts in finance.
As opposed to a comedy show that actually does call it as it sees it? Nice. What yoru saying is a comedy show should be held to the same standards of the news networks or vice versa. *whistles*
I am sorry, did Stewart make any claims to being a serious journalist? did he force people to listen to him? Did he make any claims of being anything but a gladfly, a fly in the ointment? No. Stop attributing to Stewart what he never claimed he was. As for what he did to Cramer, he DID NOTHING to Cramer what Cramer didnt do to himself. What you prefer it if NO ONE spoke about Cramers bad calls, his CLEAR attempts at defrauding the market with his hedgefunds? nice, so basically business as usual for you. Next thing you will be saying no one should have prosecuted Bernie Madoff.
So then Stewart attacking CNBC should be ok with you, and Cramer deciding to foot in it should also be ok with you. But no it isnt, so long as Stewart didnt actually single out anyone its fine, but the moment he actually say this company is responsible for this, or this person is responsible for this, you get upset? What you actually want then is Stewart to be silent and not speak up when he smells a rat - namely Santelli.
So..turn the other cheek? Nice. The Gospel for Stewart but Machiavelli for CNBC and its Cohorts. Essentially your saying that No one has the right to call out the people who run things and that we should all keeps are head down and be thankful for what we have. Its ok for Santelli for going on TV and calling homeowners "loosers' but its not ok for Stewart to do so? Well done.
umm..what the hell? You want Stewart to predict what the elite of the business world and the economists could not? What you think Stewart is some Nostradamus? Jesus. Why arent you screaming your head off about those guys who ran things made tons of money and didnt see it coming?
Yes the price was going through the roof, so what? Did anyone predict when it would drop down? If I said to you that "You know what? the real estate is going to crash tommorow" and it didnt, what will you say if I said "Err, no I meant one year from now, no 2 years!" those that had concerns about it were sidelined and at the time no one would have listened anyway, and your blaming Stewart for not reporting on things even the "experts" had no clue about? Well done.
WTH? Stewart Didnt say a word about CNBC until they had Rick Santelli rant about looser homeowners something you conveniently forget. He wasnt scapegoating anyone! His beef with Santelli extended to CNBC because of their claims to *financial expertise* so stop trying to make it look that Stewart had an agenda even before Santelli went on TV.
Well actually you cant have it both ways. Did Stewart say he was an expert? NO. He said that he was angry that Cramer manipulated the stock market to make money in his hedge funds, something you conveniently forget, all the while Cramer was claiming innocence about his activities and going on. THATS what Stewart called him about on. Cramer Admits he did Manipulated the market to his own benefit and was ambiguous in his legality at best. And btw having someone else on your show doesnt automatically make you an expert, and Stewart never claimed to be one. So please.
WTH? Did you EVEN SEE THE PREVIOUS EPISODES IN ORDER? Stewart had not attacked Cramer! It was Cramer that got flustered when Stewart called out CNBC. Talk about chutzpah! You want that Stewart not only not call out Santelli, but you then say that he should not defend himself from Cramer's attacks!
Everywhere Cheeze goes, my head begins to hurt. You're right most of the time, but that may just be because after reading your novel(s) I've completely forgotten my original stand-point.
Cramer did the best he could given the fact that Jon set up a firing squad for him. For that he has my respect, it takes a lot to even attempt to go toe-to-toe to Stewart. All in all, though, I've gotta go with Jon.
Cramer did the best he could given the fact that Jon set up a firing squad for him. For that he has my respect, it takes a lot to even attempt to go toe-to-toe to Stewart. All in all, though, I've gotta go with Jon.
