Sunday, March 15, 2009

Links On Jon Stewart Taking Jim Cramer Apart

I have a post planned on Nawaz Sharif (probably going to be published tomorrow) but until then, I thought you guys might find this collection of links useful.

First, the context. If you don't know, Jon Stewart went all Crossfire on poor Jim Cramer. The unedited and unbleeped videos are below for your perusal:






















































Anyway, here's all the stuff I've read on this remarkable and brutal exchange.

James Fallows thinks Stewart "did the journalistic sensibility proud".

Andrew Sullivan thinks Cramer "crumbled from the beginning...you almost had to look away."

The New York Times report says that Cramer (and CNBC) may yet "have the last laugh" as the buzz that this interview has engendered can only be good for television personalities.

Glenn Greenwald draws parallels between Cramer and their unquestioning and symbiotic relationship with financial newsmakers with the media and their unquestioning and symbiotic relationship with political newsmakers in the run up to the Iraq war.

Matthew Yglesias is worried about the people sticking up for Cramer -- for Cramer's sake, that is.

The Slate report says that Cramer "performed an arcane combination of self-promotion, self-defense, and self-flagellation".

New York magazine says CNBC's sister network MSNBC discouraged its producers and on-air staff to not give the issue air time.

P.S.: I'm sorry about the weird formatting for this post, but blogger is being a giant pain, it's two in the morning, and I frankly don't have the patience for this shit.

4 comments:

naqiya said...

I think slate sums it best. it was soooo painful to watch though. but jon stuart's hotness level increased by at least 30%, so thats always nice.

JJY said...

Maybe it's because I watched the clips after all the hullabaloo so I expected something horrific, but I really didn't think it was all that bad.

I actually dislike Cramer a lot less now.

Fatima Quraishi said...

There were actually four separate posts (overkill?) which talked about Cramer vs. Stewart in the Times:
1. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/13/weekend-opinionator-the-magi-of-the-meltdown/
This one was about various things including but not limited to Stewart.
2. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/13/fight-night-cramer-vs-stewart/
Appropriately called "Fight Night: Stewart vs. Cramer"
3. http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/13/stewart-v-cramer/?scp=2&sq=Stewart%20Cramer&st=cse
Which is pretty much the same stuff
4. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/14/arts/television/14watc.html?scp=1&sq=Stewart%20Cramer&st=cse
And this is the one you cited.

The first three are structured much like your blog (appropriate since they are the Times' blogs) in reporting the various reactions to the show.

It was incredibly satisfying to hear Stewart pinpoint the frustration many feel with the financial system and its enablers. At the same time, I'm interested in seeing how we feel about Stewart as a public voice for this ire (see my blog: http://treadingonmytail.blogspot.com/).

Anonymous said...

While I enjoy watching Cramer every night, one must remember the show is primarily entertainment. The financial networks exist to promote their advertisers financial and investment products. Who would expect them to warn about the credit bubble or coming Washington national debt collapse which will destroy much of the remaining private wealth in America today or what this will do to the dollar, the stock market, bonds, gold or the real estate market?

It is ironic that Jon Stewart and a comedy show instead of the regulators or news media had to bring all of this public. Also in Cramers defense he is far less guilty than most of the other financial media for their efforts together with Wall Street, the politicians & incompetent regulators for what has happened.


China is now worried about their dangerous over investment in US Treasury obligations. Washington ’s long-term choice is either repudiation or monetization. For monetization to be effective, the depreciation in the dollar would have to be substantial and this in turn would dramatically raise prices of imports for American consumers which would mean a tremendous drop in foreign imports. Debt monetization would cause more disruption to exporting nations than selective repudiation of Treasury debt.

The Campaign to Cancel the Washington National Debt By 12/22/2013 Constitutional Amendment is starting now in the U.S. See: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=67594690498&ref=ts

Thanks,

Ron with 30 plus years in the investment business and banking industry.