Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Jon Stewart Continues His Smackdown on Market-Worshipping Jim Cramer and CNBC

Posted by Isaac Fitzgerald, AlterNet at 12:00 AM on March 12, 2009.


The epic battle between the Daily Show's Jon Stewart and Santelli, Jim Cramer, CNBC and the whole NBC family continues. Get the whole story here.
blogimagejonstewart1236278256

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get Video in your
mailbox!

 

The fight between Jon Stewart and CNBC started out with a "brutal, but utterly hilarious" attack on Rick Santelli's infamous rant against homeowners, and an insightful look at just how wrong CNBC got it in the days and months before the econopocalypse:

Stewart aped Santelli's newsgrabbing shouty-faced blubber from the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, coyly admitting, "I have to say, I find cheap populism very arousing." And then, for eight minutes, Stewart at his arch best (with the help of the crackerjack Daily Show research team) went on an absolute tear and burned CNBC right down to the doorframes. "If only I'd followed CNBC's advice, I'd have a million dollars, provided I'd started with a hundred million dollars."

Watch it:






















CNBC remained astonishingly quiet after Stewart's slam ... though maybe that was for the best. Unfortunately, Jim Cramer, the host of the ridiculous "Mad Money," just couldn't keep quiet, writing that his words had been taken out of context:

Jon Stewart, whose pointed takedown of the network CNBC last week has already become legendary, returned to the subject Monday in response to host Jim Cramer's complaint that he was taken out of context during the segment.

Stewart began by clarifying that the "Daily Show" had planned to air its epic dissection of CNBC's follies before the now infamous Rick Santelli was scheduled to appear on the program, as opposed to having done so in response to him canceling on that appearance.

In regards to Cramer, Stewart addressed the host's suggestion that the "Daily Show" had used a particular clip from his show "Mad Money" to make it look as if he had recommended buying Bear Stearns stock a week before it collapsed.

Stewart conceded the point to Cramer, saying with mockery, "I apologize, that was out of context, technically you were correct, you weren't suggesting to buy Bear Stearns." But wait: "That was something you did five days earlier, in your buy and sell segment."

Watch it:

But Jim Cramer didn't learn his lesson. Instead, he went on the TODAY show and, when asked about Stewart's critiques, complained some more:

JIM CRAMER: A comedian's attacking me! Wow! He runs a variety show!

MEREDITH VIEIRA: Okay, but you know what he's saying about you, that you advised investors to buy Bear Stearns. You said you were taken out of context.

CRAMER: On October 6th, 2008, I came on this show and did something you're never supposed to do if you have a stock show. I said people should sell everything. That was thirty-five percent ago. Whatever he says about Bear Stearns, this or that, that was a call that should have wrecked my career, and it would have if the market had gone up.

Well ... I mean ... you can guess where this is going (hint, it involves Jon Stewart ripping Cramer, CNBC, and the whole NBC network to shreds):

Almost as biting as his original video montage critique of CNBC, Stewart unleashed an epic attack on Cramer and the whole NBC family for using their various networks as a platform for Cramer's rebuttal.

Stewart repeatedly showed Cramer making absurd and ridiculous noises while hosting his show, "Mad Money," highlighting the remarkable similarities between the program and a wacky variety show.

Noting the awkwardness of Cramer's appearance on "The Today Show," where he watched Stewart's attack on his credibility, Stewart deadpanned that "it put a human face on my mocking, and gave me a sense of the damage I had done to a real person... It'd be like him having to watch me as his Bear Stearns advice wiped out my parents' 401(k)."

To reiterate his point, Stewart pretended to vomit as a TV clip showing plummeting Bear Stearns stock played in the split screen.

Stewart then turned to MSNBC, where he introduced Cramer's appearance on "Morning Joe" by saying "I like my news like I like my coffee, white and bitter." Stewart defended himself against Scarborough's accusation that Stewart's act consists of "he's just going to sit there and cherry-pick over the past eight years every mistake people make." Nodding his head, Stewart said, "Yes, because that is what we do."

However, what really seemed to get Stewart is what he claimed to be the shock of realizing that "if I picked on CNBC, Cramer would take it personally and get the whole NBC family involved. Don't mess with the Peacocks!"

Stewart turned to his own, rather messy, parent company by featuring characters such as Nickolodeon's "Dora the Explorer" uttering the Spanish curse word, "pendejo," and by turning to Lauren and Heidi from MTV's "The Hills" for comfort in a sketch that really just needs to be seen.

Watch It:

This media battle isn't over though, because tonight Cramer is scheduled to appear on "The Daily Show." Though if he were smart, maybe he'd pull a Santelli and "bail out." If not, well you can guess that we'll all be tuning in. (Update: Cramer will be on the Daily Show tonight, but is saying he's "nervous" because Jon Stewart is his "idol." Update 2: Apparently Cramer's Daily Show appearance should be the least of his worries: Busted: Sleaze Jim Cramer Shorting Stocks and Manipulating Markets.)

All hilarity aside though, what does it mean that Jon Stewart is doing a better job holding CNBC accountable than anybody else? James Moore has some thoughts in a post titled "And a Comic Shall Lead Them" over at the Huffington Post:

"It is a curious fact that people are never so trivial as when they take themselves seriously."
- Oscar Wilde

I am inclined to wonder if there is a line somewhere in the Book of Revelation that proclaims "and a comic shall lead them." Jon Stewart has set new standards for both comedy and journalism on television. Oddly, he was originally supposed to just make us laugh on Comedy Central. He's done that, quite proficiently, but Stewart has also figured out that some jokes are sad as well as too important not to tell.

But he's not supposed to be doing the job of reporters.

TV journalists used to almost guarantee successful careers if they could go into a tape file and find a public figure on camera with a quote that contradicted something they had just said into another camera. Tape archives had made it possible for hypocrisy to succeed irony as the fuel of insightful journalism. The most famous of these was probably George H. W. B**h's (not writing that name anymore, ever) order to "Read my lips, no new taxes." And then he raised them because he had no choice and his promise was held up in his face for trying to do what was right for the country while bad for him politically.

The practice of juxtaposing sound bites or quotes all but disappeared in journalism because few reporters had the time or inclination to search for context. They just wanted the here and the now and one side shouting at the other as if life were a cable program. (Yeah, I know, it almost is.) Reporters used to brag when they accomplished such coups as finding the historic contradictory quote, and their colleagues were justifiably jealous.

Jon Stewart has brought back context to journalism by making people in our drive-by culture responsible for their words and even actions. Stewart has helped Jim Cramer of CNBC make that awkward transition from silly and self-involved to just pathetic. Cramer, who famously recommended purchasing Bear-Stearns stock prior to the firm's total collapse, is reading Mein Karl and using the strategy of attacking the messenger when the message is so devastating. On the Today Show, he tried to dismiss Stewart as an "entertainer" who runs a "variety show."

Jon Stewart, of course, is both of those things but he is also a cultural icon. His program is free to deploy approaches that mainstream journalists cannot because he labors in the vineyards of comedy. If a writer for the Wall Street Journal or even the Boston Globe had put together a piece deconstructing the fallibilities of Jim Cramer's advice they would have had great problems with publication. Lawyers would have been engaged and editors would have furrowed their brows and worried about being counter-attacked or whether CNBC's advertisers would have stayed away from the paper. Sadly, no editor or reporter would have even thought up the idea of doing an analysis of Cramer's nonsensical babblings. Stewart has no such constraints. Everything must serve the laugh. Stewart has become a kind of Murrow for the new millennium.

Nonetheless, reporters at the big TV networks and the major publications have no excuse. Minute by minute people like Jim Cramer are feeding crap into our culture and public perceptions and it has nothing to do with reality and everything to do with their egos. How is it that a comedian is the first person to hold accountable these cheerleaders who are promoting a team that has no chance to win and, in some cases, isn't even in the damned game?

Analysts doing the autopsy on newspaper reporting and the corpse of mainstream journalism are constantly lamenting the fact that so many young people and an increasing number of others are getting their news from Jon Stewart and Comedy Central. Where else is there left to look for thoughtful, analytical, and insightful analysis of the issues of our day? The yuks are just a bonus. Cable news shows can proclaim "no bias, no bull" all they want but every story is framed for a purpose, which is drama and conflict. The viewers and the readers aren't there without the dramatic tension. You might as well be watching Law and Order: Special News Unit.

Unfortunately for traditional journalism, the audience increasingly realizes that much of the material presented is manufactured controversy that requires no resolution. Stewart, though, gives us the laconic and wiseass view of the day's news and nothing he says seems contrived. Strangely, his entire broadcast is a contrivance and yet it remains the most enlightening in the spectrum of TV "news." The only thing worrisome about Stewart's ascension in American culture is that his schtick and acerbic wit might be a canary in our red, white, and blue coal mine. We've got a funny guy in charge of how we think.

Can that be good?

Digg!

Tagged as: daily show, jon stewart, cnbc, nbc, economic crisis, rick santelli, jim cramer, the fight continues, peacocks


Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
At best: Funny but of little interest.
Posted by: -matti on Mar 12, 2009 12:22 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
More realistically: a silly distraction.

At worst?

Could one espouse the probable "worst" that this "dispute" represents and NOT be labeled a "conspiracy nut"?

I don't know.

So, in lieu of doing so, I would like to put forth that Alternet will only become "alternative" as an information source when it starts IGNORING whatever the TV is talking about.

-matti.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Goes to show that there ain't anything worth watching on them tellies these days.
Posted by: LaughingModerateIndependent on Mar 12, 2009 12:31 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Jon Stewert is funny but a bit too weak, at least when I used to watch him. Can't say he's gotten much better just reading the article.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Please elaborate Posted by: NWCrow
Just for Laughs?
Posted by: writerman on Mar 12, 2009 3:03 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
John Stewart's role is that of the sanctioned, court jester. It's a safety valve for dissent. It's social criticism, but without political content pointing to any practical alternative.

Humour allows one to speak the truth to power but without the normal consequences of doing so.

The question arises though, what happens when things are so bad that they are no longer really funny anymore? When does one stop laughing as a response, and begin to get angry? Like in the years before the French Revolution, when one stopped laughing at the aristocracy in their virtual world of Versailles, and started to hate them, and eventually began marching.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Just for Laughs? Posted by: Jayzer
» RE: Just for Laughs? Posted by: GerryAttric
» RE: Just for Laughs? Posted by: Steve Adair
» Dissent Posted by: Jest2007
This isn't really a spot on article
Posted by: krock on Mar 12, 2009 3:34 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First: The news media has always been terrible. I'm a little dismayed to see someone posting on Alternet rehashing the fallacy that "at some point the media used to at least try to tell the truth, and now it doesn't."

It's never tried to do that. Not corporate-paid media. The example given is a perfect example. George Bush I raised taxes - that galled the Powerful elite. That's why it became a national joke, because Business was irritated and paid for people to hear about it. Watergate was about the cultural elite, namely Rich Democrats, having their little office broken into; at the exact same time, a few heroic types got their hands on some documents called COINTELPRO - stunning proof that the FBI was considering the elimination of Martin Luther King, for example, after a long, involved campaign of harassment, illegal spying, illegal break-ins - and that's just the start. The papers revealed a massive conspiracy by the FBI to do exactly the same, but worse, to the American people, as the tiny infraction Nixon got busted for - the media remains silent from that day to this on that subject.

Now before we go into "Well, at least Watergate got reported", let's make sure "we're clear" (to quote another poster here) we understand that once again, this is an example of American Business leading the way. Nixon was the latest in a line of Presidents who refused to hang the loss for Viet Nam on his name. Business had turned completely against Viet Nam after the disastrous Tet Offensive (this is voluminously documented, Chomsky alone has probably written two bibles-worth on the subject) and was putting enormous pressure on Nixon to just cut and run;it was way too expensive, the public was disgusted and halting production in too many places, and there were other reasons as well for their mutiny.

Nixon refused. A lot of capital went in any direction that would bring him down. I don't think any serious analyst of those events can say this was some kind of independent cantankerousness by the media. This was the media just being what it is: an extension of the wishes of the elite.

So, is the media better or worse today? I think sometimes it is worse, but sometimes I agree with Chomsky and others when they argue that, as heinous as it is, it is actually better than ever. It's arguable, but I think sometimes it has to be viewed as better than it has ever been. That fact alone is why I want the public to recall the rights to all television channels for true public use. That this could actually be the best our media has ever been, is inexcusable.

And while I think Jon Stewart is a true exception - no, let me stay on this subject a second more - The Daily Show, meaning the very smart people putting that show together, is a true exception. I don't think they always get it right, I think they, for example, are still scrambling to educate themselves on the financial crisis, their reporting is spotty and weak on this. Z magazine was warning their readership in 2001 about this new threat to America called "sub-prime lending", and Elizabeth Warren from Harvard was practically on tour trying to shake the country awake.

These are our true radicals, just to name two. The Daily Show is still playing catch-up - BUT - they are trying, and they do call it as they see it. They have snuck in while Power was sleeping - see, Power doesn't have a sense of humor, not even a 'sense' of it. They try not to get involved with it unless they hear one of the seven dirty words. There are now-famous stories of politicians who had no idea Steven Colbert was kidding, for example.

Under the umbrella of humor, Stewart and TDS ensconced themselves, and by the time anyone woke up the public was completely in love. TDS walks a scary line because one mis-step and Power is waiting to come crashing down like a tsunami.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

this really isn't - Part 2
Posted by: krock on Mar 12, 2009 3:40 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To their credit, they don't slip up. The single exception to the condition of media being used against the public, in my opinion, is Stewart and TDS. I appreciate the commenting by Alternet on every stab they take at Power.

But. I have to wholeheartedly agree with Matti about Alternet, on the whole, commenting on way too much television. I stopped paying for cable for a reason: that stuff is quite literally rotting the brain. Yes, literally: it sets the brain in a very comfortable situation, where humans don't have to think for themselves, or at all. And when organizers and resisters like myself try to have a so-called 'radical' conversation with 90% of the public, they generally transform into Agent Smith before your eyes and it can get hairy. This is really happening;it is done largely through print and electronic media.

I have to object to the huge amount of coverage to every utterance by Right-Wing pundits. Why spread their words? It is an attempt, usually, to be inflammatory, and it's short-sighted. Even Corporate Power has established, as one of the Immutable Laws of business, that you do NOT spread the word of your competition by attacking them. I know what so-called 'liberals' are going for; trying to embarrass the so-called 'Republican Party' into cutting ties with Limbaugh- constantly calling him "the defacto head" of that imaginary Party, the hope is to destroy Limbaugh.

But how could that work? When his name is on the lips of every so-called 'Republican' AND 'Democrat', how can we expect that he will fade into obscurity? There is just no precedent for that ever having worked.

Attacking pundits doesn't get people fed; it doesn't get people in the same room with a doctor; it doesn't shelter abandoned children; it doesn't even splinter the Power Structure; it doesn't stop CNN from pretending to be a 'liberal' outlet; it doesn't get even ONE State in this union to start teaching economics; it doesn't teach Civics; it doesn't teach History; it doesn't win civil rights for all; it doesn't revoke the Corporate charter; it doesn't bring true democracy to us; it doesn't stop people from being usually paid 8 hours for having worked 12; it doesn't stop all spending in this country happening through the Pentagon system; it doesn't stop the unthinkable proliferation of our violence in Afghanistan; it doesn't help the worker get control over his workplace; it doesn't pay teachers a reasonable wage;

It does empower someone that - let's face it, Alternet writers - someone that I don't ever hear a word about, because I've unplugged from the Cable Television Matrix. There's only one place I can reliably hear about every laughable word, thought, and fart by Right Wing clowns; that is Alternet. I realize other so-called 'liberal' publications do the same thing, like the Huffington Post, but I really limit my exposure to that also for the same reasons. It is too often a place to get fluff opinions on subjects that don't really exist, but that the so-called 'left' carefully frames for us. I check in with it from time to time, but as I say, it is limited.

Please consider the value in wasting time on that sort of nonsense. Please do keep informing the public on the growing eye-poking between The Daily Show and The Power Structure. Please re-think the idea that the mainstream media has ever, ever, been more than a function of Power.

Btw- Please support some of the great organizing going on this weekend against Prop 8 if you are in California. We're going to spread like wildfire bringing education, dissent, and rational discussion to anyone and everyone we can get in our eyesight on the subject of Same Sex Marriage. If you can give your most precious resource, Time, you'd be doing something mildly heroic - and if you can only give of your second most valuable resource, Money, that's well appreciated also. Let's stick together.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: this really isn't - Part 2 Posted by: radiogrl33
» single exception? Posted by: bizeeb
How important is this?
Posted by: weathered on Mar 12, 2009 4:16 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
2 media mouths, right, wrong, indifferent doesn't matter and ultimately either do they.

Romes burning, turn-off the TV

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE:How would I rate this song?(comment) Posted by: walldodger1969
seazen
Posted by: seazen on Mar 12, 2009 5:11 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While it appears that there is widespread disdain for TV among the posters here - and for good reason - the seems to be a willful ignorance of the extraordinary abuse of power that has been occurring in our broadcast media. By this I mean a refusal to take any responsibility for the real accuracy, truth, or potential downstream impact of what is being reported.

John Stewart tries, using humor as a weapon, to occasionally point out the potential damage from highly produced and repeated "news and commentary" that borders on lies, distortions and worse. He is a comedian and reminds people of that. And he is good at it because both he and Colbert are intelligent and are concerned about the crap we are being fed.

CNBC and Kramer, for example, have celebrated - for their own self-interest - the emergence of a "casino" culture regarding "investing." If you all think that that has been good for the overall health of our financial system, take a look around. They could care less about the accuracy or value of their "hot picks", etc. They have zero accountability.

More importantly, there is more than a little evidence that Kramer is up to his ears in some very shady people and organizations in terms of an illegal and very damaging practice most often called "naked short-selling". Google Kramer, Byrne, and Overstock.

It means a lot if the bulk of those reporting the "news" are afraid of digging too deeply into little things like why our financial system went bust. You don't think it really happened over-night, do you?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: seazen Posted by: cassie47
cassie47
Posted by: cassie47 on Mar 12, 2009 5:11 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree with the facts underlying the humor of Jon Stewart. It amazing how most comments dismiss him as a humorist (which he is) and dismiss the actual facts presented. Personally I feel the comments on Wall street about "paying other's mortgages" and those who wanted an "extra bathroom" unbelievable. We are bailing out people who have "houses." Speaking in plural means you are not in the same boat with those who lost everything at the hands of those who were trusted and greedy.
I am tired of those who will whine about a dime going to the those who DID work, DID save, and WAS swindled while allowning millions awarded to those who did the swindling.
Oh please! Go Jon.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Planned crash?
Posted by: warrior woman on Mar 12, 2009 5:54 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Jon Stewart is "da man" of the moment. Getting the truth is at least a start, isn't it? Should we consider it his job to provide us with alternatives to our current situation, the economic crisis? I think not.

Let's bring the right under one heading, world dominion, quite obviously the goal for the past umpteen years. Jon's exposure of the lies & what they tell us, is supportive of the long term goal of neoconservatives, unfortunately, there are more than neocons involved: http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/
government/new_world_order/news.php?q=1236713498
The Trilateral Commission: Usurping Sovereignty

The other day a friend sent me an Argentina economic collapse video, http://informationclearinghouse.info/
article22169.htm

I tried watching this pot and pan rebellion video that Naomi Klein has so aptly written about. When I ran out of time, I searched for a text but found some other interesting articles instead, they are below. I read them and thought, hmm, could this be part of the right's intent during this current economic crisis? As you can see, a couple are from major media outlets. Nevertheless, the parallels are astoundingly familiar, today's crisis and what some have thought the Argentinian crisis is, a live experiment or practice session for today.

CNBC Analyst: Global Bank, Global Currency Within 15 Years http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajsNReR1mG0

And now for a world government

December 9, 2008 1:22am http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7a03e5b6-c541-11dd-
b516-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1

http://blogs.ft.com/rachmanblog/2008/12/
and-now-for-a-world-government/

I think these are right wing but interesting as well because of references to the bilderberg connection:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajsNReR1mG0
New Financial Order to Emerge out of G20 - CNBC 2/25/09

http://www.prisonplanet.com/cnbc-analyst-
global-bank-global-currency-within-15-years.html

Prison Planet.com
Friday, February 27, 2009

Financial Times Editorial Admits Agenda For Dictatorial World Government

Jaw-dropping report concedes that “global governance” is a euphemism for anti-democratic global government

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com http://www.prisonplanet.com/financial-times-
editorial-admits-agenda-for-dictatorial-
world-government.html
Tuesday, December 9, 2008


I keep hoping that I'm delusional and that Obama and gang are on the high road, we shall see.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Planned crash? Posted by: krock
Can it be good?
Posted by: mattwoolery on Mar 12, 2009 6:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It IS good. How else to cope with this "mental recession"?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comedy, satire, mocking, belittling...all effective tools.
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Mar 12, 2009 6:04 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Jonny Swift knows it, so does l'il Stewart. So, in fact, did some of the swiftboaters. More power to him: if he can make his money mining the obvious for laughs and deserved scorn, he's one less mouth we'll have to feed on the public dime versus the case were he unpopular and had to steal his food and housing from the taxpaying public. I say again: good for him, make your money well.

More seriously, mocking and belittling of their "rituals" did bring down the kkk to a large extent, and did make them appear as the handfuls of freaks they are. The resulting marginalization of that group was a demonstrable advance for our society.

Now, I'm not by any means comparing folks who listen to Kramer and the CNBC cabal to klanners and their acolytes, but the devastation that exposing their rituals and failings can bring on any organization has been apparent throughout modern literary history.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Many of you
Posted by: sawdust on Mar 12, 2009 6:06 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Are just jealous you did not think of Stewart's plan of attack before you did.

We desperately need the humor.

We should be bucked up by the courage and factual accuracy of TDS satire.

We should be encouraged and emboldened by Stewart's clever use of irony: God bless videotape.

Like most 'experts' on cable TV, Cramer is a "populist" economist. He serves his own (comical and entertaining)brand of faux financial champagne for those in America on a beer bankbook budget. He ignores the big picture and the big issues in favor of commercial popularity and show business. There is more "variety" in his "reality" show and more "reality" in Stewart's "variety" show.

We can choose to be green with jealousy about Cramer or green with envy at Stewart's incisiveness.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comic speaking truth to power
Posted by: luzilla on Mar 12, 2009 6:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It makes perfect sense that Stewart, a jester, under the cover of silliness, can say the hard things. This device (eg Swift/Gulliver's Travels, etc) has been used when the real world discourse becomes too dangerous. The speaker/writer can say, "I was kidding, it was a joke!" or in Swift's case, it was just a child's bedtime story/fairy tale.

Michael Moore uses satire with great success in getting our ADD public to pay attention to serious problems, but he's pretty sure there is a contract out on his life. He feels there is a bullet somewhere with his name on it. If anyone did serious harm to Stewart, they'd become instantly ridiculous. Stewart has constructed a win/win situation for his work. Bravo.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Market Forces say....You analysts SUCK!
Posted by: Purple Girl on Mar 12, 2009 6:34 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why would anyone still be listening to these idiots (or crooks). They either have no idea what the hell their talking about or they are in on the Scam. God knows Sharks love when the lil' fish come into to their realm- E- Trade, Scot Trade are nothing more than embodiements of the adage 'A suckers born everyday'.
Although I am suspecious of Geithner and Summers, I am hoping they have been 'Flipped' and have decided to either help fix their fuck ups (Crimes) or tell US where all the bodies are buried.Both are yet to be seen.
But the morons on these cable market channels should have gone extinct, The Market has proven your worthless, disasterous!At best incompetent, more likely Criminally liable. When the (Cosmo) 'Cramers' expounds the virtues of a Corp, is that because he's got a bet that the price will go up. When he talks a corp down is it because his bets that the price will go down?It's not just insider trading which manipualtes the market, but those who millions listen to for market advice.The 'Cramers' knew the Regulators were 'out to lunch' and still were willing to advise the average 'joe' on their assesments- Please, they were part of the Great Con.these market 'analysts' are nothing more than Toxic Snake Oil Dealers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Smothers Brothers
Posted by: zepher on Mar 12, 2009 7:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anyone remember them? 1960's. They were the sole voices in the sea of Vietnam violence. Comedians, good at their job, taken off the air for talking funny truth about the Military Industrial Complex, the thousands of conscripted soldiers fighting and dying in 'Nam, Kent State, California governor Ronald Reagan I saying "shoot to kill" re: demonstrators against the war at UC Berkeley.

Not much has changed, the "media" , i.e., TV and radio news, is not truthful and is still following lockstep with the would be controllers of the world. Even with a good President in office.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

satire is educational,TV is NOT
Posted by: wleming on Mar 12, 2009 8:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Satire is an educational form: unlike corporate capitalist tv--which is a liars Paradise. Stewart is simply telling the truth: the corporate media is a buffoon driven wasteland overseen by greed-and idiot presenters like Cramer. The documentary film and satire remain the only areas of TV left where the truth is available. Forget Saturday Nite Dead, long since a casualty of its own mindless sit com. soft ball celebrity wanna be bs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Scratching the Surface
Posted by: krock on Mar 12, 2009 8:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a short vid that barely scratches the surface of the seminal work done by Chomsky and Herman on the Propaganda Model. Understand that Chomsky is famous around the world, and is blacked out in his own country. He predicted it would be so. To paraphrase a tiny piece of their work: 'If the Model is wrong, it will likely be dismissed. But if it is right, it will definitely be ignored.'

Most of his own countrymen have never heard his name. It's a sin. Not only has he done the remarkable and just given, just handed us a framework for Understanding Power (my favorite book), but he is also possibly one of the great scientific minds ever. His work as a linguist completely broke open the field, he revolutionized - not just political dissent, which has been sort of a sideline for him - but the way we think of higher human functions. And it's all missing from the public discourse.

NOT BECAUSE THE PUBLIC IS STUPID. Intelligence is genetically ingrained in each of us - talk to any regular guy about baseball and you'll hear a scientific analysis of statistics and contracts that will intimidate Stephen Hawking. It is because of a constant, purposeful, cynical barrage of deflection. A lot of money, most of the money spent in this country, even by the Pentagon, is geared towards 'Market Research', and there is a reason for it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYlyb1Bx9Ic&feature=related

Copy n paste into the browser - it's on Youtube of all places.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Scratching the Surface Posted by: bizeeb
Refreshing
Posted by: DCBFiddler1 on Mar 12, 2009 9:14 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would simply like to respond to several of the previous posts by saying that I think that John Stewart is very refreshing.

The the whole NBC crew seems to really think of John Stewart as a comedian/joker (which he is,) and it doesn't make sense to me that they're bringing it up so much and taking it so seriously. Sure it is an attack on them, but I think the joke is on them for being so offended. Cramer talks about John Stewart being a comedian running a variety show. Okay first, look at Cramer's show. Enough said. Also, I have more respect for a guy like John Stewart because he's more of a professional in his field than people like Cramer claim to be in theirs. Economist? Psh. Talking head, more like. All Cramer is good at is whipping viewers up and driving home a message through sheer volume and force. That's the whole premise of the show (Mad Money, that is.) At least Stewart contributes to the script of the show-- I should note that he was the script writer in full during the whole writers strike debacle and many viewers enjoyed his show more when he was the writer and host simultaneously. Coming back, does Jim Cramer really even contribute to the message of the show? I doubt a major network would hire someone like him if they wanted an honest and good economist to report to their large audience. Instead, they hired him to convey, with blunt force, whatever message they want to put out, for whatever reason (i.e. to buy Bear Stearns, etc.) All Cramer represents is the political message of NBC. That is exactly why I would love to THANK people like Alternet for not stooping to the level of many of our major networks by being a billboard for various companies, organizations, corporations, political parties, or ideas. I would think twice of accusing Alternet of anything less.

Sure the economic crisis is a very serious and weighted issue, but why not keep high spirits by laughing along with people like John Stewart? I would SERIOUSLY doubt that he is really rendering any action by the people to fix our economic crisis and stop joking about it. In response to one post, it's difficult to compare our present economic state to historical events like the march against the contemporary French political hub of Versailles because we Americans are so disjointed. Revolutions are a thing of the past. They are something that requires communities and interconnectedness, which only exists in small portions of America. America as a whole is far too disjointed and the possibility of a revolt to stop this economic crisis is unlikely (to put it lightly.) I believe it must start with the government (and it's happening!) I digress. I think our mainstream media is just as much to blame for people not taking action. Cramer told us to hold on to our money for Christ's sake (I think that is a pretty good formula for economic disaster.) Any mention Obama makes to redistribution of wealth the media jumps on and labels it "socialism" (which is BAD, the antichrist, the bane to our existence, America) before the papers even get it in print. The whole message America has been fed, in my opinion, is the reason for this economic crisis.

In conclusion, thank you Mr. "Court Jester," variety show running, "comedian" (in the most negative sense,) named John Stewart for keeping me laughing and light-hearted as I deal with my own issues as a result of this economic crisis. It helps me!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Jonathan Leibowitz and Jim Cramer are laughing all the way to the bank
Posted by: cindyn on Mar 12, 2009 9:46 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a farce - a fake outrage "fight" to goose up viewership. Jonathan Leibowitz and Jim Cramer are at "war" as much as Ann Coulter and Bill Maher are at war.

It's a farce.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Jonathan Leibowitz? Posted by: bizeeb
» RE: Jonathan Leibowitz? Posted by: zipper696
CRAMER
Posted by: pappy on Mar 12, 2009 10:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
GO to" op ed news" and really find out about this creep Cramer and his cohorts short selling,deception

TRY THIS OR SEARCH CRAMER
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Jim-Cramer

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Jon Stewart is now "The most trusted name in news."
Posted by: UnEasyOne on Mar 12, 2009 10:50 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It ain't an accident that the youth turnout was so high - and so pro Democrat - in this last election.

Stewart played almost as large part in that (by building a receptive audience for Barack"s message) as did Obama himself.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Stewart finally takes on a real subject
Posted by: ibolyap on Mar 12, 2009 11:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
During the Bush administration Stewart had many people(Kristol, Lynn Cheney, Tony Snow, etc) on his show but didn't challenge them too strongly. Now that the administration is more line with his personal beliefs he has chosen to attack the media that fed into the financial lies about investing. I don't think he can say anymore that his show is just satire. It is more than that and always was but it was denied. Very well done Jon!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Turdmining for a good Joe Scarborough quote
Posted by: Defenestrator on Mar 12, 2009 12:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here's a good one from Scarborough on Iraq. This is back right after the invasion when the right was thrilled about how simple it was, a cakewalk just like they said it would be:

"I doubt that the journalists at the New York Times and NPR or at ABC or at CNN are going to ever admit just how wrong their negative pronouncements were over the past four weeks."
(MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, 4/9/03)


"I'm waiting to hear the words 'I was wrong' from some of the world's most elite journalists, politicians and Hollywood types.... I just wonder, who's going to be the first elitist to show the character to say: 'Hey, America, guess what? I was wrong'? Maybe the White House will get an apology, first, from the New York Times' Maureen Dowd. Now, Ms. Dowd mocked the morality of this war....

"Do you all remember Scott Ritter, you know, the former chief U.N. weapons inspector who played chief stooge for Saddam Hussein? Well, Mr. Ritter actually told a French radio network that -- quote, 'The United States is going to leave Baghdad with its tail between its legs, defeated.' Sorry, Scott. I think you've been chasing the wrong tail, again.

"Maybe disgraced commentators and politicians alike, like Daschle, Jimmy Carter, Dennis Kucinich, and all those others, will step forward tonight and show the content of their character by simply admitting what we know already: that their wartime predictions were arrogant, they were misguided and they were dead wrong. Maybe, just maybe, these self-anointed critics will learn from their mistakes. But I doubt it. After all, we don't call them 'elitists' for nothing."
(MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, 4/10/03)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Distraction? Conspiracy? It's much simpler than that.
Posted by: dsmidwest on Mar 12, 2009 2:16 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Jon is just giving voice--and a potent voice it is--to exactly what most of us are thinking, only Jon says it better. And louder. What's the problem with that? The super-rich have always had a loud voice, and no one has ever complained about their right to use it. Look at Santelli using his place on CNBC to give his personal and highly unjustified rant where everyone is going to end up hearing it, if not on CNBC, then on every other news outlet that repeats it.

Jon gives many others a voice they don't otherwise have. And that is obvious because why else would Santelli, Cramer, and company even care?

Go, Jon!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Perception Management
Posted by: warrior woman on Mar 12, 2009 2:31 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
“perception management.”

Have you heard or used the term before?

I was reading a Consortium News article yesterday and it appeared in this paragraph http://www.consortiumnews.com/2009/031109.html:

"As intellectuals who followed the elitist philosophy of Leo Strauss, the neocons understood the vital need to control and shape the information that reached politicians and the public, all the better to manipulate them. This concept was known internally as “perception management.”

Here's the wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perception_management

Heck, I always thought the word was propaganda. Guess not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The more things change....
Posted by: DaBear on Mar 12, 2009 8:02 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's all too reminiscent of a cumbersome but intriguing Russian novel (is there any other kind?); Fyodor Dostoevsky's The Idiot.

I especially enjoyed watching Stewart's bits on the Cramer thing, and watching Cramer nearly burst into tears watching Stewart's jabs....

Now, I love a good cry and I blubber up at virtually nothing most days, but when a parasite like Cramer gets a comeuppance, it's priceless.

The only thing better would be to see the unwashed wielding pipes to beat the shit out of the rich bastards' cars when the pundit caste leave their garages at the close of the day.... even better if I get to be one of 'em.

Absolutely NO MERCY to the merciless.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]