PDA

View Full Version : (UPDATED w/ Video) Daily Show w/ Jon Stewart


frerottenextelway
03-12-2009, 09:42 PM
Had Jim Cramer from ''Mad Money'' on tonight. Republican or Democrat, if you're at all into politics/financials, you should check it out. This episode was one of the greatest in television history imo.

I'll add video in here tomorrow.

Also, Jim may end up in jail shortly.

UPDATE: Here's the extended version in full.

Part I.

<embed src='http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:221516' width='448' height='361' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' wmode='window' allowFullscreen='true' flashvars='autoPlay=false' allowscriptaccess='always' allownetworking='all' bgcolor='#000000'></embed>

Part II.

<embed src='http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:221517' width='448' height='361' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' wmode='window' allowFullscreen='true' flashvars='autoPlay=false' allowscriptaccess='always' allownetworking='all' bgcolor='#000000'></embed>

Part III.

<embed src='http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:221518' width='448' height='361' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' wmode='window' allowFullscreen='true' flashvars='autoPlay=false' allowscriptaccess='always' allownetworking='all' bgcolor='#000000'></embed>

TDmvp
03-12-2009, 09:46 PM
Had Jim Cramer from ''Mad Money'' on tonight. Republican or Democrat, if you're at all into politics/financials, you should check it out. This episode was one of the greatest in television history imo.

I'll add video in here tomorrow.

Also, Jim may end up in jail shortly.


Yea that was insane . I think Jim wet himself ...

Br0nc0Buster
03-12-2009, 09:49 PM
I didnt see the whole thing, but it seemed like John was letting him have it and Jim just kind of took it and apologized at the end.

Wasnt a back and forth like I thought it would be

tsiguy96
03-12-2009, 09:51 PM
i really wish i got to see it, damnit. btw all the episodes are on his website...wonder if its up yet.

Dagmar
03-12-2009, 09:57 PM
http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/j/ap/e7b010a3-db58-459b-bb88-c2d5eefef6d1.hmedium.jpg

NEW YORK - Jon Stewart hammered Jim Cramer and his network, CNBC, in their anticipated face-off on “The Daily Show,” repeatedly chastising the “Mad Money” host for putting entertainment above journalism.“I understand that you want to make finance entertaining, but it’s not a ... game,” Stewart told Cramer, adding in an expletive during the show’s Thursday taping. The episode was scheduled to air at 11 p.m. EDT on Comedy Central.
It was perhaps the hardest lashing Stewart has given to a TV (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29666141/#) commentator since 2004 when he called Tucker Carlson and his then co-host Paul Begala “partisan hacks” on CNN’s “Crossfire,” the since canceled political commentary program.


The program opened in mock hype of the confrontation, which caught headlines through the week as each snipped at the other over the air. The show announced it as “the weeklong feud of the century.”In his opening, Stewart announced that it was “go time.” He played a video clip of Cramer’s Thursday guest appearance on “The Martha Stewart Show” in which Cramer beat a mound of dough, pretending it was Stewart.
Said Stewart: “Mr. Cramer, don’t you destroy enough dough on your own show?”
Once Cramer came out for the interview, Stewart wondered: “How the hell did we get here?”
Cramer, his sleeves characteristically rolled up, said he was a “fan of the show.”
But the humorous tone — at least for Stewart — changed as the interview continued.
Stewart repeatedly said Cramer wasn’t his target, but aired clip after clip of the CNBC pundit.
“Roll 210!” announced Stewart, like a prosecutor. “Roll 212!”
Most were from a 2006 interview not meant for TV in which Cramer spoke openly about the duplicity of the market.
“I can’t reconcile the brilliance and knowledge that you have of the intricacies of the market with the crazy ... I see you do every night,” said the comedian.
Stewart said he and Cramer are both snake-oil salesman, only “The Daily Show” is labeled as such. He claimed CNBC shirked its journalistic duty by believing corporate lies, rather than being an investigative “powerful tool of illumination.” And he alleged CNBC was ultimately in bed with the businesses it covered — that regular people’s stocks and 401Ks were “capitalizing on your adventure.”
For his part, Cramer disagreed with Stewart on a few points, but mostly acknowledged that he could have done a better job foreseeing the economic collapse: “We all should have seen it more.”
Cramer said CNBC was “fair game” to the criticism and acknowledged the network was perhaps overeager to believe the information it was fed from corporations.
“I, too, like you, want to have a successful show,” said Cramer, defending his methods on “Mad Money.” He later added: “Should we have been constantly pointing out the mistakes that were made? Absolutely. I truly wish we had done more.”Cramer insisted he was devoted to revealing corporate “shenanigans,” to which Stewart retorted: “It’s easy to get on this after the fact.”
At one point, Cramer sounded the reformed sinner, responding to Stewart’s plea for more levelheaded, honest commentary: “How about I try that?” said Cramer. “I’ll do that.”
By the end, the two-segment interview went far beyond its allotted time. Comedy Central said the on-air version would be cut by about eight minutes, though the entire interview would be available unedited on ComedyCentral.com on Friday.

400HZ
03-12-2009, 09:58 PM
I didnt see the whole thing, but it seemed like John was letting him have it and Jim just kind of took it and apologized at the end.

Wasnt a back and forth like I thought it would be

I don't think there was a much that Jim could have said without dumping on his network. He definitely walked into a buzzsaw.

tsiguy96
03-12-2009, 10:04 PM
I don't think there was a much that Jim could have said without dumping on his network. He definitely walked into a buzzsaw.

stewart routinely destroys people in his clips, mostly fox news because they make such big asses of themselves, but not often does he do it face to face. very few people i think are willing to go on the show, i have never seen him really LOSE an argument in years, he makes more sense then most and does it in such a way that everyone can relate to.

BroncoLifer
03-12-2009, 10:12 PM
It was perhaps the hardest lashing Stewart has given to a TV (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29666141/#) commentator since 2004 when he called Tucker Carlson and his then co-host Paul Begala “partisan hacks” on CNN’s “Crossfire,” the since canceled political commentary program.



Pot, meet the kettle.

Killericon
03-12-2009, 10:23 PM
Pot, meet the kettle.

As Stewart pointed out, he is a comedian. He's on the Comedy network. He's allowed, even supposed to be a partisan hack. People on CNN aren't. You should watch it, it's really great. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE)

BroncoLifer
03-12-2009, 10:48 PM
As Stewart pointed out, he is a comedian. He's on the Comedy network. He's allowed, even supposed to be a partisan hack. People on CNN aren't. You should watch it, it's really great. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE)

I have watched it, to see what the hype was about. From what I've seen, in the end he's a political comedian. A clever, intelligent comedian for sure but a partisan hack at root.

Pseudofool
03-12-2009, 11:21 PM
Here's a thread with a some clips for context: http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=78096

Jesterhole
03-12-2009, 11:26 PM
The thing about The Daily Show and Stewart is that his platform allows him to get to the truth and absolutely eviscerate his target in a way that any other journalist wouldn't dare.

He proved that tonight, wish he could get more people on his show like that.

Popps
03-12-2009, 11:55 PM
I like the JS show a lot. I also like watching Mad Money.

But, they're both entertainment. Cramer gives regular and constant reminders that what he is doing is just a guide, not a way to live.

Beyond that, so what if you did buy Bear Sterns.... so you lost money on a trade. It shouldn't have been more than a small fraction of your portfolio, anyway. If you would have locked in on some of his picks over the prior couple of years, you could have doubled your money on various other recommendations.

These shows (Mad Money, Fast Money, etc.) are just guides. They're tools to use to get better feels for market direction, etc.

Making a big deal about a pick gone good or bad is like going back two years and finding a Sunday NFL pre-game show where someone picked the wrong team. I mean... is it really that shocking? Do people think that every pick the guy makes goes up?

Stewart may have some points, but locking in on a bad stock pick, even if it was one as glamorous as the Bear miss is just silly. To me, it almost makes Stewart look sillier than Cramer for the naivete of assuming a stock picker won't have misses, and even bad misses.

Xenos
03-13-2009, 01:06 AM
I like the JS show a lot. I also like watching Mad Money.

But, they're both entertainment. Cramer gives regular and constant reminders that what he is doing is just a guide, not a way to live.

Beyond that, so what if you did buy Bear Sterns.... so you lost money on a trade. It shouldn't have been more than a small fraction of your portfolio, anyway. If you would have locked in on some of his picks over the prior couple of years, you could have doubled your money on various other recommendations.

These shows (Mad Money, Fast Money, etc.) are just guides. They're tools to use to get better feels for market direction, etc.

Making a big deal about a pick gone good or bad is like going back two years and finding a Sunday NFL pre-game show where someone picked the wrong team. I mean... is it really that shocking? Do people think that every pick the guy makes goes up?

Stewart may have some points, but locking in on a bad stock pick, even if it was one as glamorous as the Bear miss is just silly. To me, it almost makes Stewart look sillier than Cramer for the naivete of assuming a stock picker won't have misses, and even bad misses.
Stewart wasn't really jabbing at Cramer so much as jabbing at CNBC. He respects Cramer, but his whole rant was about how CNBC (the supposed financial guide) ignored its responsibility to its audience the general public. He was upset that they bought all the CEO lies instead of doing their own investigating about the validity of the info they were receiving.

I guess to sum it up, Stewart was upset that he had to play journalist on a comedy show while a supposedly respected network like CNBC is playing the fool.

Popps
03-13-2009, 02:26 AM
Stewart wasn't really jabbing at Cramer so much as jabbing at CNBC. He respects Cramer, but his whole rant was about how CNBC (the supposed financial guide) ignored its responsibility to its audience the general public. He was upset that they bought all the CEO lies instead of doing their own investigating about the validity of the info they were receiving.


Well, this is a highly, highly complex issue, but let's just deal with some of the ground-level stuff first...

CNBC is an information channel. It's not really a "guide," so much as it is a market "play-by-play." There's analysis, opinion, some advice which you can take or leave, some special reporting, etc. If you watch the shows, you do hear quite a bit of their guests calling bull**** on a variety of things. They featured a number of fund managers who warned of this coming.

Here's one of many...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw

"Recession is coming, and it's going to be bad... it's going to last for years."

They even gave someone the chance to counter his opinion, who looks real ****ing silly in retrospect.

This guy nailed it. CNBC gave him a medium to do so. Why isn't Jon Stewart talking about this?

Schiff was just one of many voices that could be heard on CNBC saying these exact same kinds of things, as well as people with opposing viewpoints. CNBC gave forums to all of them.

As for the CEOs... why wouldn't they stick a mic in front of these guys if they're willing to talk? CNBC doesn't claim to be an expose so much as it does a forum. I don't know where it's written that it's their job to foresee global breakdowns (which few foresaw) and warn us to pull our money out of the market.

Our own government did nothing to warn or protect us. Is a cable network supposed to?

Stewart is just way off. He's a bright guy, and I'm not saying CNBC is without flaw, but he's just basing this attack on a faulty premise. He's looking for a place to stick this blame, and he's absolutely omitting the numerous examples of those who DID warn you ON CNBC that turbulent times were coming.



I found this with literally ONE Youtube search.

Taco John
03-13-2009, 02:32 AM
That's a good question... Why the hell isn't Jon Stewart talking to Peter Schiff?

Popps
03-13-2009, 02:36 AM
That's a good question... Why the hell isn't Jon Stewart talking to Peter Schiff?

Well, I steer clear of the partisan stuff... but I do believe those who are looking for places to point fingers do have to dig harder with Bush out of office. The douche-bag talking head guy in the Cramer video said all of this, but he was partially right. Bush was an easy target, and for good reason. But, I think Stewart's act is based largely upon sort of pulling the rug out from under people and a sort of comedic expose-style, politico humor.

Again, I think he's hysterical... he's just barking up the wrong tree picking on a cable network.

In fact, I just posted a thread as an alert to a fantastic special airing Sunday night on that very channel that will do more to educate people on what's happened than anything he'll ever do on his show.

Taco John
03-13-2009, 02:38 AM
Well, I steer clear of the partisan stuff...

Heh. I'm no partisan. I hate both parties equally. :~ohyah!:

Popps
03-13-2009, 02:41 AM
Heh. I'm no partisan. I hate both parties equally. :~ohyah!:

Amen.

HILife
03-13-2009, 05:18 AM
I got to remember to watch all these clips when I get back from work.

alpine
03-13-2009, 05:39 AM
Stunning TV. Thanks for posting those.

NOLA Bronco
03-13-2009, 07:35 AM
Pot, meet the kettle.

TDS is spending plenty of time mocking Obama right now. They really are equal opportunity entertainers. If sh!t is funny, it doesn't matter where it comes from.

NOLA Bronco
03-13-2009, 07:41 AM
I like the JS show a lot. I also like watching Mad Money.

But, they're both entertainment. Cramer gives regular and constant reminders that what he is doing is just a guide, not a way to live.

Beyond that, so what if you did buy Bear Sterns.... so you lost money on a trade. It shouldn't have been more than a small fraction of your portfolio, anyway. If you would have locked in on some of his picks over the prior couple of years, you could have doubled your money on various other recommendations.

These shows (Mad Money, Fast Money, etc.) are just guides. They're tools to use to get better feels for market direction, etc.

Making a big deal about a pick gone good or bad is like going back two years and finding a Sunday NFL pre-game show where someone picked the wrong team. I mean... is it really that shocking? Do people think that every pick the guy makes goes up?

Stewart may have some points, but locking in on a bad stock pick, even if it was one as glamorous as the Bear miss is just silly. To me, it almost makes Stewart look sillier than Cramer for the naivete of assuming a stock picker won't have misses, and even bad misses.

The Bear example was just one of many. Stewart's point was that the "experts" like Cramer who know how the markets work (and based on the 2006 tape - how to manipulate the market) shouldn't be trying to sell people a bill of goods if they know (or should know) there is more to it. In the media that exists today, far too many things get sensationalized, and CNBC and the like buy into the hype from big important people far too often. He felts that as a "legit" news source, they should do a little more fact checking and due dillegence.

Like Stewart said, "I understand that you want to make finance entertaining, but it’s not a F%$&in game"

tsiguy96
03-13-2009, 09:13 AM
popps, there is no way for jon stewart to access the same people that CNBC does. what hes saying is that, CEOs and other very important people go on these news shows, and they do nothing to put them against the wall. hes not blaming CNBC for being the ones who destroy america, hes blaming them for not putting pressure on the idiots who are. jon stewart knows his exact role in the news and he doesnt cover it, he even said so in the 2nd video. but part of his role is to keep major players in the news honest, and that hasnt been the case in the last several years, thats what he is calling out, that CNBC isnt reporting the news taht people need to hear, its reporting what people want to hear. the news has become more about entertainment instead of information.

Drek
03-13-2009, 09:27 AM
I like the JS show a lot. I also like watching Mad Money.

But, they're both entertainment. Cramer gives regular and constant reminders that what he is doing is just a guide, not a way to live.

Beyond that, so what if you did buy Bear Sterns.... so you lost money on a trade. It shouldn't have been more than a small fraction of your portfolio, anyway. If you would have locked in on some of his picks over the prior couple of years, you could have doubled your money on various other recommendations.

These shows (Mad Money, Fast Money, etc.) are just guides. They're tools to use to get better feels for market direction, etc.

Making a big deal about a pick gone good or bad is like going back two years and finding a Sunday NFL pre-game show where someone picked the wrong team. I mean... is it really that shocking? Do people think that every pick the guy makes goes up?

Stewart may have some points, but locking in on a bad stock pick, even if it was one as glamorous as the Bear miss is just silly. To me, it almost makes Stewart look sillier than Cramer for the naivete of assuming a stock picker won't have misses, and even bad misses.

Its not just about Bear though. Its that no matter what CNBC labels themselves as, be it entertainment or a trading "play-by-play" network, its all disingenuous because what they in fact are really doing is running a network that is 90% PR for major corporations.

Thats why just a few months before this crash they were running out CEOs and other execs from Bear, Lehman, AIG, etc. on a daily basis letting them publicly spread their lies and never actually backing it up with any real hard hitting investigative journalism.

If you're going to function largely as a mouthpiece of the banking sector then at least be up front about it. Otherwise there is a thing called "journalistic integrity" that should be maintained.

Its not just CNBC though. The shoe fits on the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, Fox News, MSNBC, etc. across the board equally well. That is what should really be enraging people. In amidst all the journalists in this country does anyone really think we have one legitimate Carl Bernstein or Bob Woodward with the pull to break something akin to Watergate again? I don't. The integrity of the reporting outlets has been slackened and as a result the pull of well intentioned reporters has died off.

Our government and financial sector are both supposed to be systems of checks and balances, with gaming of that system exposed by the free press. Now that the later has lost its teeth in favor of a ratings driven "entertainment news" format the former has been allowed to run amok and has created 9/10ths of the problems we face today.

vancejohnson82
03-13-2009, 09:28 AM
The Bear example was just one of many. Stewart's point was that the "experts" like Cramer who know how the markets work (and based on the 2006 tape - how to manipulate the market) shouldn't be trying to sell people a bill of goods if they know (or should know) there is more to it. In the media that exists today, far too many things get sensationalized, and CNBC and the like buy into the hype from big important people far too often. He felts that as a "legit" news source, they should do a little more fact checking and due dillegence.

Like Stewart said, "I understand that you want to make finance entertaining, but it’s not a F%$&in game"

yea...but I think its a little unfair

when i first started to get into finances and the market, I would watch Kramer's show for tidbits of knowledge and a better understanding of how things work out there and what to possibly look for.

a lot of people would tune into the show and just buy whatever he said and take his word as gospel...its not fair to take somebody in that position and then bash them when the market downturns....

its like a kid watching Sesame Street then using the letters they learn to write curse words on the wall.....its not Sesame Street's fault, its the way the information was used by the child that is at fault


does that make sense?

Hogan11
03-13-2009, 09:31 AM
I'd rather look at Erin Burnett than Jon Stewart anyday, but that's just me I guess.

Rock Chalk
03-13-2009, 09:32 AM
I dont particulary care for John Stewart. No knock on him, I just dont dig political comics. I guess for me, politicians are not to be made fun of, they are to be hammered for every single lie they tell. Most of what they do is not a laughing matter as their actions affect every single citizen of this country, left, right and middle.

Now, Mahar, Stewert, Miller, when they aren't talking politics have some funny **** to say, dont get me wrong.

And I tend to agree with Popps on this. Cramer, from what I understand, is pretty accurate but no one predicting the market can be right all the time because the market is such a volatile dynamic with far far too many variables for even IMB's petaflop supercomputer to accurately predict. Its like throwing a leaf in the river and trying to predict its path. There are just too many variables to get it right 100% of the time.

I say, if you got a batting average of .350 in predicting the stock market, you are doing well. Cramer is probably batting around .500 whichi s extremely well.

frerottenextelway
03-13-2009, 09:51 AM
I dont particulary care for John Stewart. No knock on him, I just dont dig political comics. I guess for me, politicians are not to be made fun of, they are to be hammered for every single lie they tell. Most of what they do is not a laughing matter as their actions affect every single citizen of this country, left, right and middle.

Now, Mahar, Stewert, Miller, when they aren't talking politics have some funny **** to say, dont get me wrong.

And I tend to agree with Popps on this. Cramer, from what I understand, is pretty accurate but no one predicting the market can be right all the time because the market is such a volatile dynamic with far far too many variables for even IMB's petaflop supercomputer to accurately predict. Its like throwing a leaf in the river and trying to predict its path. There are just too many variables to get it right 100% of the time.

I say, if you got a batting average of .350 in predicting the stock market, you are doing well. Cramer is probably batting around .500 whichi s extremely well.

The issue really wasn't/isn't at all about picking the ''right'' stocks.

This is more what it is about:

<object width="425" height="344"><param value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZWVmlxhk-tU&amp;color1=0xb1b1b1&amp;color2=0xcfcfcf&amp;hl=en&amp;feature=p layer_embedded&amp;fs=1" name="movie"></param><param value="true" name="allowFullScreen"></param><embed width="425" allowfullscreen="true" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZWVmlxhk-tU&amp;color1=0xb1b1b1&amp;color2=0xcfcfcf&amp;hl=en&amp;feature=p layer_embedded&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" height="344"></embed></object>

montrose
03-13-2009, 10:25 AM
I can't believe CNBC's PR people let him go on the show.

BroncoBuff
03-13-2009, 10:40 AM
Just watched it ... very disappointed.

Stewart barely let Cramer get a word in, he talked 75-80% of the time. And when Cramer did speak, Stewart interrupted him every time with "gotcha" applause lines. I'm angry like Stewart is about all this, but you can't take it all out on Jim Cramer's dog and pony show.
[

frerottenextelway
03-13-2009, 10:58 AM
Just watched it ... very disappointed.

Stewart barely let Cramer get a word in, he talked 75-80% of the time. And when Cramer did speak, Stewart interrupted him every time with "gotcha" applause lines. I'm angry like Stewart is about all this, but you can't take it all out on Jim Cramer's dog and pony show.
[

I think Jon made the point this isn't about Cramer, but he has become a face of it.

Kaylore
03-13-2009, 11:04 AM
Just watched it ... very disappointed.

Stewart barely let Cramer get a word in, he talked 75-80% of the time. And when Cramer did speak, Stewart interrupted him every time with "gotcha" applause lines. I'm angry like Stewart is about all this, but you can't take it all out on Jim Cramer's dog and pony show.
[

I agree. This seems like a straw man move by Stewart show what a good guy he is and make him seem more relevant. He's put a face on the stock market problems and then beat it up so his audience can masturbate his ego for him. And Cramer was pretty cool during the whole thing. I think it all made Stewart look small.

Kaylore
03-13-2009, 11:06 AM
I think Jon made the point this isn't about Cramer, but he has become a face of it.

And Stewart made him the face of it. He decided to chew him out. Sure he paid lip service to him not being the source, but that's not how it will play and Stewart knows that. Now a bunch of college kids are pumping their fists like "yeah! Screw him! He got it WRONG! He's what's wrong with America!" When Cramer had very little to do with any of the real problems.

frerottenextelway
03-13-2009, 11:07 AM
I agree. This seems like a straw man move by Stewart show what a good guy he is and make him seem more relevant. He's put a face on the stock market problems and then beat it up so his audience can masturbate his ego for him. And Cramer was pretty cool during the whole thing. I think it all made Stewart look small.

What was the strawman argument Stewart made?

Kaylore
03-13-2009, 11:10 AM
What was the strawman argument Stewart made?

When he suggested the general problems with the stock market are a result of poor journalism by Cramer. His show isn't even a journalism show. It's entertainment that follows the stock market. And barking at Crammer on your TV show like he's the problem is ridiculous.

frerottenextelway
03-13-2009, 11:17 AM
When he suggested the general problems with the stock market are a result of poor journalism by Cramer.

When was that? That seems to be a strawman claim by you.

His show isn't even a journalism show. It's entertainment that follows the stock market. And barking at Crammer on your TV show like he's the problem is ridiculous.

Cramer and CNBC isn't the problem, the problem with CNBC and by extension Cramer is that they are appeasers of the problem. That was Jon's point.

tsiguy96
03-13-2009, 11:47 AM
Cramer and CNBC isn't the problem, the problem with CNBC and by extension Cramer is that they are appeasers of the problem. That was Jon's point.

exactly jons point. they call themselves news show and all this, yet they do nothing to provide real groundbreaking news, they are simply an outlet of lies and deception by teh real problems while making no real attempt at uncovering the truth.

Xenos
03-13-2009, 12:09 PM
That's a good question... Why the hell isn't Jon Stewart talking to Peter Schiff?
Becuase Schiff wasn't the one to call out Stewart like Cramer did. One of the main reasons this whole interview took place was because that incident. Stewart simply used it as a way to put CNBC even more down.

NOLA Bronco
03-13-2009, 12:15 PM
I think it all made Stewart look small.

Not sure what you were watching. For a comedian, Jon Stewart was very well prepared and knew what he was talking about. Cramer had to sit there and take it, because there is no rebuttal available when you are proven wrong.

chickennob2
03-13-2009, 12:25 PM
Not sure what you were watching. For a comedian, Jon Stewart was very well prepared and knew what he was talking about. Cramer had to sit there and take it, because there is no rebuttal available when you are proven wrong.

Exactly. Stewart plays a video of Cramer talking about the tricks you could pull as a hedgefund manager. Then he attacks Cramer for doing these things, which Cramer outright denies. Stewart then plays the next video, where Cramer straight up admits to doing. Cramer comes back with a "well, now its on tv." Of course Stewart's going to be talking most of the time, there is no possible response Cramer could have when it was just proven that he lied.


Also, Stewart isn't saying all of this is Cramer's fault. This whole mess started with Santelli attacking those who lost their homes, calling them "losers." Stewart then pointed out the fact that these "losers" lost their homes while Santelli's network CNBC (yes, including a video of Cramer) was pimping these banks that took much bigger risks on extremely unsound loans. So Stewart was attacking this hypocrisy. Then Cramer, spoke out against Stewart, thereby MAKING HIMSELF the face of this debate. Stewart didn't call out Cramer for making bad stock picks at all. He attacked the hypocrisy of a network that was essentially insulting people for following their own advice. Cramer brought the spotlight on himself.

Killericon
03-13-2009, 02:01 PM
For our Canadian Viewers: http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/#clip149637

Smiling Assassin27
03-13-2009, 02:10 PM
That moron Cramer got his lunch money taken by that moron Stewart in a debate devoid of depth, but chock full of quips and hindsight hand wringing. I mean, Cramer didn't even make a defense, as he's out of his league when it comes to comedic rants and guffaw grubbing. If they got down to it and talked about in-depth economic issues, Stewart would be out of bullets inside a minute and would come off looking like the half-read, half-baked ideologue that he is. Of course, he uses the excuse that he's on Comedy Central and so justifies his partisan antics because of this.

What's funniest is that both are on record as BIG obama honks, and yet they're eating each other all because their glorious president has made mistake after mistake.

Hmmm, I guess that makes John Stewart the leader of the Democratic Party, using the Dems own recently unveiled standards.

Kaylore
03-13-2009, 02:32 PM
Not sure what you were watching. For a comedian, Jon Stewart was very well prepared and knew what he was talking about. Cramer had to sit there and take it, because there is no rebuttal available when you are ambushed.

Fixed your post.

BroncoBuff
03-13-2009, 02:52 PM
When he suggested the general problems with the stock market are a result of poor journalism by Cramer. His show isn't even a journalism show. It's entertainment that follows the stock market. And barking at Crammer on your TV show like he's the problem is ridiculous.

Actually frerotte, this is correct imo ... Stewart seemed to think that journalists such as Cramer should also be watchdogs. I dunno if I buy that.

Stewart also dredged up an old streaming Internet panel discussion with Cramer from two or three years ago, in which Cramer made some "loose statements" about avoiding oversight for certain activities. It sounded bad, but it was also pure "gotcha" on Stewart's part.

I'm definitely P.O.'d about all this ... and Cramer is ONE of the guys who played this too fast, too loose. But the over-leveradging laws were the fault of Congress, Clinton and Bush. Cramer is not the villian imo ... he's just one of many taking advantage of what the law allowed.
.

Hogan11
03-13-2009, 04:19 PM
I agree. This seems like a straw man move by Stewart show what a good guy he is and make him seem more relevant. He's put a face on the stock market problems and then beat it up so his audience can masturbate his ego for him. And Cramer was pretty cool during the whole thing. I think it all made Stewart look small.

I agree, 100%. Cramer, by almost refusing to battle when he couldn't get a word in edgewise, took a lot of the power out of it and reduced it to a non-event at best, a flop at worst...which is the worst thing a comedian like Stewart could have happen on his show. It was a huge disappointment for those who live for confrontational TV and a blueprint for the diffusion of future events like this. The whole thing turned out to be an awkward bore and I can't think of anything that could've been worse for The Daily Show than that....if they're smart, they'll let that be the end of it.

Killericon
03-13-2009, 04:23 PM
Fixed your post.

You thought he was ambushed?!? What do you think Cramer was expecting going into that interview, a hug?

R8R H8R
03-13-2009, 04:48 PM
You thought he was ambushed?!? What do you think Cramer was expecting going into that interview, a hug?

First the disclaimer: I don't care for either guy, but I do watch Cramers show from time to time just to keep up on an issue that I'm interested in.

I don't know what Cramer expected, but I think it's safe to say, he didn't expect the broadsiding he got from Stewart.

Stewart absolutely ambushed, pantsed, and humiliated Cramer, and I believe it was his intention to do so. However, I was surprised that Cramer didn't defend himself more.

You don't look a guy in the eye and tell him this is not personal to him, and then turn around and show clips from 3 years ago for the sole purpose of making him look like a fool.

frerottenextelway
03-13-2009, 05:00 PM
That moron Cramer got his lunch money taken by that moron Stewart in a debate devoid of depth, but chock full of quips and hindsight hand wringing. I mean, Cramer didn't even make a defense, as he's out of his league when it comes to comedic rants and guffaw grubbing. If they got down to it and talked about in-depth economic issues, Stewart would be out of bullets inside a minute and would come off looking like the half-read, half-baked ideologue that he is. Of course, he uses the excuse that he's on Comedy Central and so justifies his partisan antics because of this.

What's funniest is that both are on record as BIG obama honks, and yet they're eating each other all because their glorious president has made mistake after mistake.

Hmmm, I guess that makes John Stewart the leader of the Democratic Party, using the Dems own recently unveiled standards.

In a 25 minute interview I don't think the words Clinton, Bush, Obama, Republican or Democrat was spoken once.

frerottenextelway
03-13-2009, 05:18 PM
Actually frerotte, this is correct imo ... Stewart seemed to think that journalists such as Cramer should also be watchdogs. I dunno if I buy that.


Journalists should partake in journalism.


Stewart also dredged up an old streaming Internet panel discussion with Cramer from two or three years ago, in which Cramer made some "loose statements" about avoiding oversight for certain activities. It sounded bad, but it was also pure "gotcha" on Stewart's part.

I like Jim Cramer as a man, but it wasn't ''gotcha'' snippets. I posted that interview in question in this thread. In context, Jim's talking about committing fraud against laymen like you and I - I don't think that is debatable. And that's perfectly relevant in a discussion.


I'm definitely P.O.'d about all this ... and Cramer is ONE of the guys who played this too fast, too loose. But the over-leveradging laws were the fault of Congress, Clinton and Bush. Cramer is not the villian imo ... he's just one of many taking advantage of what the law allowed.
.


"It's very easy to get on this after the fact. The measure of the network.... CNBC could act as... in some ways... look, nobody is asking them to act as a regulatory agency... but who's side are they on here?

It feels like they have to reconcile... is their audience the Wall Street traders who are doing this for constant profit on a day to day, the short term?

These guys at these companies were on a Sherman's March through their companies financed by our 401ks and all the incentives of their companies were for short term profit. They burned the ****ing house down with our money and walked away rich as hell and you guys knew that that was going on."

The bold part is the key quote here. There seems to be some confusion here, Stewart is not accusing them of causing the problem, he's accusing them of appeasing those who did cause the problem.

NUB
03-14-2009, 01:41 AM
The gist of it is that CNBC has the attention of all the CEOs, are clearly involved with the market, but failed 100% in this crisis, later admitting that they didn't see it coming (an obvious lie); never once admitting their own complicity.

Stewart's point is that these people should be looking out for us not them. That while the shows present themselves as a way for the laymen to get involved, CNBC was really just working for the people trying to get rich as quickly as they could. They **** all over everyone's long term futures and CNBC watched it all happen, often right in bed with those doing it.

DeusExManning
03-14-2009, 01:51 AM
Why aren't people talking about credit default swaps? That is why this is all happening and you do not hear Obama or anybody talking about it. This is the reason it all went down and major corporations are still liable for over 4 trillion dollars with nothing to back it up. ALL of the money AIG has paid out was for credit default swaps. Blame subprime borrower for not making their payments when they lost there job because the company they work for was overly leveraged with credit default swaps.

NOLA Bronco
03-14-2009, 09:41 PM
Fixed your post.

Everyone knew what Stewart was gonna do and what he was gonna show. Heck, those 3 year old clips of Cramers were on the Mane!

There was no ambush. He should have known what was coming. The clips were reflective of how Cramer and MANY like him know the nuances of the market to the point that they should have known better than to trust what the ceo's and others were saying. If you know how to cheat, you should be able to spot a cheater.