The Stewart Cramer Spat – Moon of Alabama

March 13, 2009

The Stewart Cramer Spat

On the Stewart take-down of CNBC's Cramer promoted by the U.S. left here, here and many other places:

This is ridiculous.

At the key point, in the third part at 4:27, Stewart asks Cramer: "What is the responsibility of people who cover Wall Street? Who are you responsible to? The people with the 401ks and the pensions or the general public or the Wall Street traders?"

The simple answers to those simple questions are: 1. To make money. 2. My boss and my wallet. 3. None of these – see 1 and 2.

With the last question a red card is held up and Stewart asks "Is this card blue or green?"

Stewart wants to make us believe that a commercial TV program has an obligation to public causes.

Why would that be?

Cramer works for CNBC and his task is to make a program that is as profitable as possible for his employer and for himself. That is his only task and motivation. To be as profitable as possible the program needs to attract advertising and a public that is big and fatuous enough to make that advertising profitable for the advertiser.

Additionally to that CNBC is required to take its owners other interests into account. CNBC is owned by NBC which is owned by General Electric (GE), a very large hedge fund with an attached industrial and media conglomerate. GE's interest will always trump any other interest aired by CNBC.

Stewart is payed lots of money for attracting profitable advertising for Comedy Channel which is owned by MTV itself owned by VIACOM, a public traded company owned by who knows who but certainly not "the general public".

So Stewart has no interest in saying the obvious: Commercial TV, CNBC as well as Comedy Channel, has no interest in the general public good at all. Their only interest is to make money.

Stewart wants to embarrass Cramer and CNBC over doing exactly the same stuff he himself is doing – albeit in a different market segment.

Ridiculous.

A few days ago I told a friend that the first real sign the current financial crisis is over will be the news about the immediate shutdown of the last financial TV station. "When CNNmoney, CNBC and Bloomberg are gone this crisis will finally end." I should have included the Comedy Channel in that list.

Posted by b on March 13, 2009 at 20:34 UTC | Permalink

Comments

Yeah, the house always wins. They’ll sell tickets to their own execution and all that. Still I think Jon Stewart does do a good job in expressing the collective outrage instead of channeling it all into dead-end cynicism. Working for the man is what we do.

Posted by: biklett | Mar 13 2009 20:50 utc | 1

You know, back when I watched teevee I thought The Daily Show was great. It was about the only thing I watched, other than sometimes Animal Planet or the History Channel. Fuck the local news, that shit’s all lies anyway. What isn’t lies will just bring on depression if it’s watched in any kind of regularity. But The Daily Show in particular has kind of lost its luster with me over the last three or four years. Maybe because it’s just a comedy show. It’s easy to get laughs out of a target-rich environment like the Bush Administration. I think the high point was when Dick Cheney shot his friend in the face, but they really kind of let me down personally when covering the 2008 election and the farce of a “choice” we had to make in this country. So I turned off the teevee altogether, and now just turn it on to watch pirated movies.

Posted by: Jim T. | Mar 13 2009 21:09 utc | 2

If it was any other industry but “media” I would agree with you. The trouble with media, is it influences the decisions of others. Should CMBC be allowed to only run positive soundings articles about GE? Should the media get a pass when lieing?

Posted by: bruce adair | Mar 13 2009 21:12 utc | 3

So, basically, I take it that the only conclusion we can draw from your post is that there shouldn’t be any commercial TV anymore. That’s fine with me.

Posted by: CluelessJoe | Mar 13 2009 21:48 utc | 4

b, you possibly missed the first part, where Stewart makes a major distinction between the Daily Show, as news and CNBC, as their ads say, the experts on the markets, with Cramer. The Daily Show makes every point that their “news” is bs, the financial experts consider themselves “experts” and sell themselves as serious.
Critical distinction.

Posted by: Intelvet | Mar 13 2009 21:54 utc | 5

How and why is ‘commercial TV’ any different from any other news source?
Is Cramer any different from the NYT or WaPo stable of reporters?
Are the answers to 1, 2, and 3 any different for the print media?

Posted by: Dick Durata | Mar 13 2009 22:27 utc | 6

b, your observation that all these are just commercial programs and their primary motivation is to make a profit and get paid as much as possible is correct.
However, news divisions have always had a “public responsibility” and for those over the air channels have received “exclusive” licenses to public radio frequencies. Yes, CNBC exists to make money for its owners but the longer their audience lose money based on their cheerleading the sooner they stop making money. CNBC makes a point to promote itself as the purveyor of investment expertise. Jon Stewart pointing out that’s not so by making us guffaw and ribbing CNBC is good for his Daily Show.
Comedy Central’s Daily Show is a comedy show. It makes money by making us laugh. What’s tragic is all they need to do is point out the farce that is the current ruling scheme where the average citizen has essentially been made into a laughing stock by the ruling elites.
During the 8 years of Dick Cheney – Jon Stewart captured the hypocrisy as caricature and made money for his show, its owners and himself. I think he is on to something and wish him well. Reality is the best entertainment.

Posted by: ab initio | Mar 13 2009 23:06 utc | 7

Kill your TV!
Debating the merits of TV shows is like debating whose feces smell sweetest. It’s all a scam!
Think you’re learning something while watching the idiot box… Your brain on TV, or stupid is as stupid watches

Posted by: David | Mar 13 2009 23:38 utc | 8

b, why have you allowed this to annoy you so much? who cares.

Posted by: Al | Mar 13 2009 23:45 utc | 9

Les Guignols, Spitting Image, The Onion and John Stewart are/were occasionally fun to watch/read and probably all attempt to profit. Lighten up and enjoy or ignore.
Cramer, etc are in to stock manipulation by his own admission. The major media constantly try to place the crisis on homeowners buying what they could not afford, rather than the derivative activities of the banks. That Stewart dared to point these activities out to a wider audience, I find only positive.
We have been back in US for a month after 20 yrs in Europe. Culture shock is an understatement for what we are experiencing and yes we have been watching the TV to try to understand better. It is a sad state of affairs when Stewart is the ONLY person on the networks pointing out even simple truths and contradictions in a sea of jingoism and political maneuvering.

Posted by: ww | Mar 14 2009 1:19 utc | 10

they are just so frighteningly stupid screaming in those banshhee voices that take you back to worst of arseholes during your high school years who always ended up being given some level of authority
these people are fools of an unbearable kind & they think of themselves as experts – but when you think that they often say before committees that they didn’t quite understand this, or comprehend that & in any case they do not remember
it really is lord of the flies

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Mar 14 2009 2:19 utc | 11

We need here in the colonies, a dialectical tension. And for a thrilling moment, Stewart offered us the acknowledgment of a contradiction in the usual way the business here is “reported.”
But, death to the empire, b!

Posted by: slothrop | Mar 14 2009 3:13 utc | 12

I don’t know…wouldn’t Stewart be out of business himself, if he were successful in hounding Cramer off the airwaves? Although Cramer’s show itself is more of a kind of comedy infomercial rather than serious market analysis. He’s not selling stock picks so much as he’s selling a caricature of what an “insider” big shot trader looks and acts like. All in all it makes for a perfect target subject for Stewart, not unlike the mockery of hypocritical posturing politicians he’s famous for.

Posted by: anna missed | Mar 14 2009 3:13 utc | 13

To borrow from what someone else said, I too would agree with you if you were talking about any industry besides the media. They present “news” which influences public opinion and decision making. Therefore that does not allow them the cop out you afforded them here by saying, “Oh, they’re just trying to make money and we shouldn’t take them seriously.” Then maybe they shouldn’t label themselves news.

Posted by: David | Mar 14 2009 3:25 utc | 14

finally watched it, and the degree to which cramer groveled before stewart’s pithy condemnation was actually quite bizarre. stewart has an immense reserve of cultural capital, and he spent it wisely with an entire episode with minimal ad breaks to lay in quite succinctly (cathartic whoosh heard nation wide) to a mewing stooge of wall street. b, you underestimate the importance of stewart.
after front paging uncle’s post, intoning how we, in the U.S., seem to have more people concerned with such issues , and now this, harping on a commercially televised showdown between GE and Viacom, i am beginning to wonder, b, if you might not harbor some deeper antagonism toward the U.S. that, in these particular cases, clouds your otherwise insightful observations.

Posted by: Lizard | Mar 14 2009 4:07 utc | 15

I don’t understand what is a “cathartic whoosh”?
Normally a whoosh implies the whooshee is clueless, so how would it be cathartic? I think b was right on, it was inane. (only having seen small bit).
I guess you mean a cathartic breath of recognition of something that was obvious 5 years ago but now said by someone with good hair ha ha?

Posted by: defuroletter | Mar 14 2009 4:38 utc | 16

OK – question: Why didn’t Stewart point out the obvious – that its all about money, Cramer’s personal income and GE’s profit line?
Instead he asks about “responsibility” – and tries to keep up the meme that commercial TV cares about that at all. It does not. It has no reason to do so.

Posted by: b | Mar 14 2009 4:44 utc | 17

defuroletter: cathartic whoosh: in this case, a feel good moment where a popular television icon “stands up” to GE’s media wonks, but when the moment is over, they go back to their regularly scheduled behavior.
b: i’m not expecting any miracles here from stewart. i agree with your basic premise, but there have been some very good comments in this thread about the commercial status of any media outlet. what do you expect?
i guess i’m just trying to understand why this american popular culture incident is bothering you so much.

Posted by: Lizard | Mar 14 2009 5:10 utc | 18

I can see why b is upset, as much as I like Stewart and the Daily Show because it is funny and I do think people are learning to question authority because of him, he still has to work within some pretty well defined parameters. If he were to go outside the doughnut his show would stop too and he knows this. So he and Cramer are both in the same situation in that they are paid to play a certain part, Stewart the funny guy and Cramer the smart rich guy whom more people admire than Stewart.
So, rather than being pragmatic about the whole thing and enforcing standards already in place concerning knowlingly spreading false information or organiziang a boycott against CNBC or what I believe would be most effective, publish questions to the CEO of CNBC and ask him why he pays entertainers to spread lies.
I used to work for a guy who told me to talk to the head of the snake because that was the end that could bite you. Stewart is pissing in the wind by humiliating Cramer.

Posted by: dan of steele | Mar 14 2009 6:31 utc | 19

dan: i was disgusted, and said so, when stewart helped the U.S. laugh through the slaughter of gaza. unfortunately, it is “comedians” like stewart who help a large amount of people face up to reality in this country.
but why does this thread exist? stewart made a splash even b felt compelled to respond to. i find that interesting.

Posted by: Lizard | Mar 14 2009 6:54 utc | 20

perhaps it is because b knows how to fix things. this is like a hot stone massage for someone who has pancreatic cancer, of course you feel better but you are still deathly sick.
goes back to what Churchill said about us, we can be counted on to do the right thing, after we have tried everything else. maybe just once we could skip some of the things already proven not to work in the past.

Posted by: dan of steele | Mar 14 2009 7:12 utc | 21

B said: “A few days ago I told a friend that the first real sign the current financial crisis is over will be the news about the immediate shutdown of the last financial TV station. “When CNNmoney, CNBC and Bloomberg are gone this crisis will finally end.” I should have included the Comedy Channel in that list.”
While I find it really WIERD, that a comedian would out an obvious crook who admitted his crookery, I’m delighted that happened.
I’m MORE intrigued that http://www.deepcapture.com/the-story-of-deep-capture-by-mark-mitchell/ is out and loose on the internet . . . a story and plot that pretty much shows how and why a lot of banking thuggery took place . . and Cramer is all over this.
Whether you think Deep Capture is a Robert Ludlum plot gone astray or the characters named and the patterns described are real (I believe it’s all real) you HAVE to link that report back to a history of American corruption in financial, military, and other fields that have been outed.
Milken, Enron, and more are proof none of these fucking players acted alone.
The MSM then, the present MSM, the elected officials, the de regulations, the deeds done.
All are tied, and all you have to do is look at the NAMES in Deep Capture, google them, and get their history, and linkages, to the history.
These fuckers raped us. And continue to do so.
Any discount that there’s not a conspiracy to perpetuate the upwards movement of the earnings of our sweat equity, while driving down our earnings potential, is pure horse shit.
And I don’t mind saying so.
All y’all can intellectualize this till the cows come home, but the salient and bottom evidence and truth is that money, power and control are up, and the masses quality of living is shot to hell . . . and it’s not over yet. The upper middle class is already taking hits since Lehman went down like a back alley hooker, and they will take more, much more.
All our money’s belong to them.
Fucking, HARUMPH! I say.
Now you folks tawk . . . I’m watchin . . .

Posted by: Larue | Mar 14 2009 7:35 utc | 22

little brother over at Greenwald has a good take on this though most of the other comments are not all that inspiring.

Posted by: dan of steele | Mar 14 2009 8:04 utc | 23

So did Cramer NOT see that Colbert made a complete fool of him already? What made him think he could survive against Stewart?
Or was this just to gain everyone’s pity and stop Stewart from ruining CNBC’s rating? I don’t want to sound like a conspiracy theorist but if the shoe fits…this makes me wonder whether he voluntarily appeared on Stewart’s show as yet another stagecraft of deeper emotional control. To stir up hyperkinetic reactions. Thereby taking some of the sting out of the whole mess of this robbery. After an emotional war, people are less likely to care, using cramer as an lighting rod, when he plays a small role in all this seems a form of boundary violation through the proxy of collective manipulation, and as b wrote of late contributes to collective apathy.
Finally, I have mentioned before the recent use of pundits seemingly using the sympathy ploy used with these writers about both Cheney and Jr. Bottom line, it just doesn’t seem clear and more importantly nor does it feel clean.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Mar 14 2009 8:25 utc | 24

Pssst: possessive apostrophes — “not just a good idea.”
There, that out of the way, I have to agree with you… but not really. On the face of things, you’re absolutely correct as to whom a given talking head owes responsibility. But look a bit further: this isn’t Howard Stern we’re talking about. This isn’t Martha Stewart. People watch this program not simply for the entertainment value, but for the implicit (and obvious) fact that these guys
a) know more than you, and
b) are offering investment advice.
When these two are put together, suddenly there *is* an onus; a broader responsibility. You can claim otherwise, but if you do so, your arguments are really beginning to wander into the land of the specious.
So, in my opinion, the *real* question should be, are these folks offering advice, or entertainment? If it’s simply the latter, then they should damn well state it. Methinks, however, that they’ve been offering entertainment in the guise of advice, and have, indeed, shafted those who took their advice. Maybe they can sleep well at night, not caring about the consequences of their words, but I believe if you’re going to attempt to offer advice in the guise of an authority, you truly do have to bear the yoke of responsibility… and that Jon Stewart was on the money.
‘Nuff said.

Posted by: Ken D’Ambrosio | Mar 14 2009 11:56 utc | 25

TV=A visual septic tank.
Wasting words trying to decide if we prefer colorful corn chunks or the undigested remains of peanuts.
All TV is shit, just different smelling piles.

Posted by: David | Mar 14 2009 12:39 utc | 26

All I will say or add or repeat if someone else has already made the same points:
For a comedy show clip, it did not seem to contain much laughter.
I found it pretty sobering – in language and terms understood by all – along with some sickening, heartfelt pains.
Great comments. Best to all.

Posted by: Darkcloud | Mar 14 2009 13:25 utc | 27

Re: David’s link @ #8–to article about change in brain waves while watching television and ensuing “brain fog.” It closes with these two paragraphs:

Most people would benefit from cutting television time; in addition, research has shown that persons with ADD or ADHD tend to have too much Alpha, Theta, and Delta wave activity and, therefore, would benefit significantly from a reduction in TV. Television certainly contributes to a reduced ability to concentrate for anyone, but especially those who already have an overabundance of Alpha waves.
Better alternatives:
Reading (a book or magazine, for instance– not televised text. It is the radiant light from a television set that is believed to induce the slower brainwaves ) and writing both require higher brain wave states. If you want to keep your brain focused and your attention strong, it is a good idea to cut your television time. Sitting quietly for a few minutes, painting, singing, reading, or going for a walk, are better for you in all ways.

Question: Does reading on a computer monitor have the same effect? Is that why some have problems reading longer articles on the screen? I find a prefer to print out really long, involved articles.

Posted by: jawbone | Mar 14 2009 14:39 utc | 28

I haven’t watched any of it, and I’m not going to watch any of it. Not even the links b has provided. David has it pegged. I wouldn’t eschew all TV, but certainly most of it. If you approach it as occasional theater, as my wife and I do, I think it can be constructive, so long as you are highly selective in what you watch, but if you’re tuned in 24/7, like most people, then the effects will be, and are, deleterious.

Posted by: Obamageddon | Mar 14 2009 15:38 utc | 29

Jawbone-
I tried doing the old google search to find out if TV or computers are worse and all I found were many cases linking television and the way it’s edited to problems.
All the research (ok I haven’t done years of study, so take what I write with a seven micron particle of sodium chloride) Where was I? – The research pointed to television as being the worst of the two because of the content, but also because of the way scenes are quickly edited to jump from picture to picture, which works like a strobe to disrupt normal thinking.
That said, most of the studies also pointed out that too much of anything is bad. And computer use is blamed for weight gain (I guess they’ve got a monitor on my scale) and also a decrease in social skills. Basically too much of anything is bad for you, television though is worse.
Kill your TV, free yourself from corporate chains and help your friends do the same.

Posted by: David | Mar 14 2009 15:42 utc | 30

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?
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.

Posted by: Ron | Mar 14 2009 18:50 utc | 31

@Jawnbone, David et al…
Thanks for the interesting discussion and info, and I agree, I stopped watching television over a decade ago, and it has made an an incredible difference in my thinking process.
I have posted before an interesting article that had a tremendous impact on why I stopped watching it, it is entitled, “Television and the Hive Mind” .

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Mar 14 2009 19:31 utc | 32

I’d write more, but I cracked my ankle this A.M. and I’m thinking of going to the emergency room if it don’t stop throbbing…lol geez… ;-(

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Mar 14 2009 19:32 utc | 33

Ankles are the worst U$, I hope you feel better soon!

Posted by: David | Mar 14 2009 20:00 utc | 34

U$@32-Great read, too bad they don’t do it as a TV show… 🙂

Posted by: David | Mar 14 2009 20:05 utc | 35

“…Comedy Channel which is owned by MTV itself owned by VIACOM, a public traded company owned by who knows who but certainly not “the general public”.”
To answer the question nobody asked…
MTV Networks does not own Viacom, Inc. They are both publicly traded subsidiaries of the private parent company National Amusements, Inc. (which also owns CBS, CNET Networks, Paramount Pictures Corp, Tech Republic, Black Entertainment Television, Caballero Television, Cy Gam Z, Showtime Networks Inc, and Simon & Schuster as well as a smattering of other media holdings.)
National Amusements, Inc (headquartered in Dedham, MA and led by CEO Sumner M. Redstone) is listed by infoUSA as a real estate management firm, although BusinessWeek describes them as a “motion picture exhibition” company. They are certainly not owned “by the general public”, but rather by the Redstone and Magner families as a glance at their management directory will confirm.
There’s no point to any of the above. I was just curious.

Posted by: Monolycus | Mar 14 2009 20:17 utc | 36

Thanks Monolycus – very interesting – if I find time I’ll try to find out ore about Redstone.
I confess I simply used Wikipedia and did no further research on the real owners of these media companies as that wasn’t my point (which was to point out the private ownership and interest).
thx

Posted by: b | Mar 14 2009 20:33 utc | 37

No worries, b. As far as I can tell, there’s nothing more to find out about them. The point you made stands; You just piqued my curiosity about the details and I decided for no apparent reason to post what I discovered.

Posted by: Monolycus | Mar 14 2009 20:47 utc | 38

What a silly argument.
“Stewart wants to make us believe that a commercial TV program has an obligation to public causes.”
The impression I had was that Stewart thought a newtwork that advertizes itself as a source for sound financial advice should give, uh… sound financial advice. Meaning, I suppose, that a network has an obligation to do what it says it will do.
Which goes to this, from Ron.
“The financial networks exist to promote their advertisers financial and investment products.”
The problem is that CNBC presents itself and its talking heads as having some kind of expertise in not just the financial arena but with the economic situation as a whole. Every day NBC and MSNBC brings on another pretty face from CNBC to talk about the economy, often times to give their (apparently uninformed) opinions on policy matters. Meanwhile all it really is, as you say, is an opportinity to speak for their advertizers.
Saying what CNBC really is doesn’t change that they want to present themselves as something else

Posted by: duhduhduh | Mar 14 2009 21:17 utc | 39

b, it’s about the concept of the media as gatekeepers to information. Those of us who have been around blogs, or read Chomsky, or done significant critical thinking on the media for the last several years are quite aware of the critiques of media as interested in saving its own skin and propping up center-right elites.
The vast majority of Americans, however, do believe that the media engages, or at least is supposed to, engage in giving accurate information to the public so that affected members of the public can make good decisions. When they don’t like what the media tells them, they usually chalk it up to specific individuals’ overt biases – so-and-so wrote bad things about Bush because they’re a Democrat-lover! The media also thinks of itself that way.
When Stewart pointedly demonstrated that CNBC was not giving accurate information, and was doing so in order to prop up the markets and look good to the financial elits.
While this may seem obvious to us, it’s not obvious to most of American viewers. And humor makes it much much easier to swallow. The most interesting thing about the whole thing is that the MEDIA paid attention to it. I wouldn’t go so far as to declare that it made the media more self-aware of its unconcious biases towards power, but if there’s a chance that it did, that’s a good thing.
And Stewart is quite up front about what he does. He’s on the Comedy Central network, and is paid to make fun of the news. That he can manage to do so in a way that is actually somewhat subversive is a good thing as well.

Posted by: Rowan | Mar 15 2009 1:54 utc | 40

Good to see ya Rowan, thanks for the post. Pull up a stool, next rounds on me.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Mar 15 2009 5:43 utc | 41

Speaking of television…
Ill see your Howard Beal, and raise you Glenn Beck.
This is quite likely, nine kinds of fucked…

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Mar 15 2009 6:17 utc | 42

re Glenn Beck, watching that clip of the asshole weeping on cue and playing to all the programmed soft spots fox viewers have is sad for me. sad because I now understand it is really that easy to manipulate public opinion. beck is a popular attraction at fox and his viewing audience is likely to increase because of this.
he reminds me so much of the televangelists who asked for money from the true believers so that they could continue to spread the word, scum like Jim Baker lived in huge mansions with air conditioned dog houses while the believers ate dog food so they could increase their monthly contribution.
people really is stupid and it does not appear that will change anytime soon. I wish someone could explain to me why so many people make the decision to be taken in by filth like beck. is it total lack of curiosity or messiah complex or what. aaarrghh!

Posted by: dan of steele | Mar 15 2009 8:51 utc | 43

Glenn Beck summed himself up best (as the new Father Caughlin wanna be) when he said “I’m turning into a fricken televangelist”. So it’s pretty entertaining high irony when these right wing wack jobs go “populist”, with their crocodile tears. At this point they got nothin’ left but a crusty sentimental reside left stuck in the bottom of an old tube sock. I mean really, the last great hope for America is for all the glazed over recently impoverished suckers drifting through half rented strip malls with no money (because they can’t think of anything else to do with themselves), to rise up and demand, well… absolutely nothing! from their government! And go instead to you’re nearest church or bar and watch million air Glenn Beck decry the evils of government and the liberal media on his big television show. Yeah, that aughta’ do it.
There’s going to be a lot more of these rhopes for dopes out there, so keep the knives sharpened.

Posted by: anna missed | Mar 15 2009 10:24 utc | 44

What a complete idiot you are.
CNBC purports to be a news channel, for Christ’ sake.

Posted by: RN | Mar 15 2009 23:21 utc | 45

This is the last time I read THIS pathetic blog.

Posted by: RN | Mar 15 2009 23:34 utc | 46

Thanks, Uncle!
b, I’m still not sure what you’re pissed off at here. Stewart made his role as comedy host clear. He demolished CNBC and Cramer’s legitimacy, as well he should have. Are you concerned that Stewart is being hypocritical?

Posted by: Rowan | Mar 16 2009 0:51 utc | 47

I think you misunderstand the question. “What is the responsibility of people who cover Wall Street? Who are you responsible to? The people with the 401ks and the pensions or the general public or the Wall Street traders?” Stewart was talking about the responsibility of Cramer as a journalist who works as CNBC. I would agree with you if he was asking the Jim Cramer who was running a hedge fund.
I can’t disagree anymore with the rest of what you said. First of all, the goals of Comedy Central and CNBC greatly differ (obviously). Comedy Central is trying to entertain people. CNBC is trying to inform people, because they are a form of journalism. When the US was created, the founding fathers saw the importance of freedom of the press. Free press guarantees that the people reporting the news are unbiased, this in turn helps protect the public. Since CNBC is a form of journalism, they have a HUGE responsibility to the public. Stewart was not trying to humiliate Jim Cramer, he was trying to humiliate the shotty reporting by Cramer and or CNBC.

Posted by: ko | Mar 16 2009 22:49 utc | 48

Back to Main