![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Cramer vs Stewart (not Martha) and other Unpleasantness
I hate it when two people I admire fight. This has occurred twice recently-- though I am ignoring the free-for-all-slugfest that occurs every fours years on my flist.
The first instance is so awful that I only peeked at it and then ran away. Dangerous and stinky. I find it wrong that most of the trouble arose from a refusal to respect the opinions of others. You cannot say, "You are wrong," with regard to an opinion. "I disagree," is fine; even, "Your facts are wrong," is all right-- but you better have more proof than a Wiki link.
As I said to a friend: what would have been a fascinating conversation in a con suite or over dinner just exploded into a conflagration on the net. And these were smart, interesting people!
*****
The second recent disappointment was the "feud" between Jon Stewart (Daily Show) and Jim Cramer (Mad Money). I consider Jon Stewart to be a witty, entertaining guy-- very smart. Jim Cramer is also smart and means well: if you can get past the gimmicks and props and over-acting (his show educates average viewers about a dry topic in an entertaining way), his knowledge of finance and stocks is solid.
Apparently Stewart took offense to a sound-bite from another CNBC reporter (a brilliant commodities man) that made a lot of people mad. That person canceled an appearance on the Daily Show and the feud (between Stewart and CNBC) began. For whatever reason, Cramer agreed to appear on The Daily Show.
Here is where I lost a great deal of respect for Jon Stewart: Cramer agrees to appear on Stewart's show-- a place where Stewart is in total control and has a fanatically devoted audience. From all appearances-- even at the beginning of the show-- it appeared to be a typical Stewart romp: he mugged for the camera, made corny jokes and references, etc. Cramer clearly expected the usual treatment: humor, witty-but-gentle slaps on the wrist and a generally agreeable time. Instead, Stewart sucker-punched Cramer. Stewart got deadly-serious and angry and played clip after clip of an interview Cramer did where he was (unwisely) honest about how he (legally) manipulated the market (he was showing how easy it is to move a stock).
Now Cramer looks the fool for having the guts to show up and Stewart is looking like a hero for his hard-hitting journalism. I have problems with this. You don't invite a guest into your house and then mug him. Stewart operates under no journalistic restraints: if he was like this all the time, he'd be just another nutcase cable news commentator. I'm incredibly bothered by this.
The first instance is so awful that I only peeked at it and then ran away. Dangerous and stinky. I find it wrong that most of the trouble arose from a refusal to respect the opinions of others. You cannot say, "You are wrong," with regard to an opinion. "I disagree," is fine; even, "Your facts are wrong," is all right-- but you better have more proof than a Wiki link.
As I said to a friend: what would have been a fascinating conversation in a con suite or over dinner just exploded into a conflagration on the net. And these were smart, interesting people!
*****
The second recent disappointment was the "feud" between Jon Stewart (Daily Show) and Jim Cramer (Mad Money). I consider Jon Stewart to be a witty, entertaining guy-- very smart. Jim Cramer is also smart and means well: if you can get past the gimmicks and props and over-acting (his show educates average viewers about a dry topic in an entertaining way), his knowledge of finance and stocks is solid.
Apparently Stewart took offense to a sound-bite from another CNBC reporter (a brilliant commodities man) that made a lot of people mad. That person canceled an appearance on the Daily Show and the feud (between Stewart and CNBC) began. For whatever reason, Cramer agreed to appear on The Daily Show.
Here is where I lost a great deal of respect for Jon Stewart: Cramer agrees to appear on Stewart's show-- a place where Stewart is in total control and has a fanatically devoted audience. From all appearances-- even at the beginning of the show-- it appeared to be a typical Stewart romp: he mugged for the camera, made corny jokes and references, etc. Cramer clearly expected the usual treatment: humor, witty-but-gentle slaps on the wrist and a generally agreeable time. Instead, Stewart sucker-punched Cramer. Stewart got deadly-serious and angry and played clip after clip of an interview Cramer did where he was (unwisely) honest about how he (legally) manipulated the market (he was showing how easy it is to move a stock).
Now Cramer looks the fool for having the guts to show up and Stewart is looking like a hero for his hard-hitting journalism. I have problems with this. You don't invite a guest into your house and then mug him. Stewart operates under no journalistic restraints: if he was like this all the time, he'd be just another nutcase cable news commentator. I'm incredibly bothered by this.
no subject
Unfortunately Kramer was the one that took the bait; I would much rather have seen Santinelli or whatever his name was come on the show to be sucker-punched instead. As even Stewart pointed out in the interview, Kramer has somehow become the face of this issue, which is unfair.
For what it's worth, though, I don't think this was a total loss for Cramer as an individual. It was hard to see him get the smackdown, yeah, but I think he's gotten a lot of credit for at least showing up for the interview, taking his knocks and issuing a few honest mea culpas rather than running and hiding like the rest of the CNBC crew seems to be doing.
no subject
If I'm a regular at a restaurant, it's because I enjoy their food and service. If this place gave me food poisoning or a member of the staff was rude or worse, I might still go back, but probably not as regularly nor enjoy myself quite as much. I watch the Daily Show for biting satire and a few laughs; that I could be subjected to such a hazing makes me far less interested in the show.
Santelli is a very highly respected commodities reporter. I think he knew that he'd be way out of his element on the show. He's not an entertainer, he's a reporter. His remarks were the result of frustration about the actions of the government. Like many things taken out of context, the reaction against them grew far out of proportion to their importance in the greater scheme. CNBC pimped it because of it's notoriety-- maybe not a good idea in retrospect.
Cramer-- like many of us-- didn't expect the reception he got. As he came on the show, he clearly showed that he expected to banter about the markets, be mocked and shake hands. Instead, he got kicked in the balls for starters, and things went downhill from there. I also feel it was unfair for Stewart to criticize him for being so unprepared: when you don't expect an ambush, you don't prepare for war.
Cramer's getting some props for showing up, but Stewart is getting far too many props for being a hard-hitting journalist, brave, etc. when I feel his scheme was more cowardly and the actions of a bully than anything noble. Stewart's singling out CNBC/NBC for this is also unfair, considering the feds, other news/finance sources saw nothing of this coming. To a large extant, any reporter has to rely on the word of others (including CEO's). They just don't have access to the books, let alone the skeletons in the closet.
CNBC/NBC considers the whole thing an unmitigated disaster.
no subject
Going on for an interview with Stewart is accepting an invitation to tap-dance with a shark. And it's not just any shark, but a shark that's won Dancing with the Stars mostly not by eating his opponents, but by tap-dancing.
Some people get Stewart playing the fool (but that's more Colbert's shtick now). Many get the tap-dance and leave bewildered and lost. A few get eaten.
no subject
Comedy Central taking pride in the journalism awards: I'd always gotten the sense that they were semi-mocking in that. Either in the sense that journalism was stupid for thinking they were news or haha, a comedy show won awards that serious media companies didn't!
no subject
A local (UC Berkeley) astronomer is a regular guest on TDS (whenever there's big astronomy news). He's said that there are only two things he can expect when he sits down in the chair: several minutes of utter madness, and his Amazon sales rank going through the roof overnight.
TDS gets people to look deeper into the subjects it's lampooning. I think that's a great thing.
no subject
And, I think you are being a bit disengenious, Stewart was goring one of your scared cows, so he had to therefore be the villian. But anyone who knows the show absolutely expected Stewart to do exactly what he did, in fact, would have been disappointed if he turned it into a puff piece.
no subject
My problem with Stewart is that he ambushed a guest. I must have missed all of the shows where he's done this in the past, or I would have stopped watching him long ago. If I watch a comedy show, I don't expect or want Deadly Serious. To do this without warning is what I have problems with-- especially when Stewart often hides behind his, "I'm just a comedian, don't take the show so seriously," when he's called out as wrong or unfair.
And, I think you are being a bit disengenious, Stewart was goring one of your scared cows, so he had to therefore be the villian.
Are you -trying- to piss me off, Steve? Very poor choice of words if that wasn't your intention. Where did I call Cramer a "sacred cow"? I had liked both men, but don't consider either to be of heroic proportions. I thought I did know the show (Daily Show), but clearly I have not seen enough to feel comfortable with his tactics.
How does this make me "disengenious" (sic)?
no subject
If that was an unpleasant suprise, you haven't been watching enough.
The only thing that is unfair about the matter is that Cramer is now being saddled with/poster boy for/martyr for the cause of the faults/virtues of his whole industry. But that is a role he and his network has to no small part chosen. And for my part, no love for him before, no tears for him now.
no subject
Stewart does a lot of things. Including acting serious, then cracking a disarming, "haha, just kidding," and laughing it off. A number of the people Stewart himself is scraeling about he's had as guests on his show, including CNBC reporters and financial people. The shows I saw were just witty banter (Maria Bartolome comes to mind: he was flirty with her).
CNBC may have been part of the problem, but then almost everybody was a little guilty-- from Clinton and Bush to the feds to Wall Street and corporations and the public all over the world. When the market was going up, up, up-- no one asked questions, at the very time that questions -should- have been asked. People -should- have been wiser, particularly after Enron collapsed. As an example of how convoluted a companies finances can be, Enron is a good example. They were able to hide their schemes from a hundred-year old accounting firm (and directly cause its demise), the government and shareholders alike. AIG's fall is credited to a small London office that risked half a trillion dollars dealing in CDS's, because England had more lax regulations. The source of these problems is world-wide. But I digress.
But that is a role he and his network has to no small part chosen. And for my part, no love for him before, no tears for him now.
Again, what does this have to do with my post? My complaint was about ambushing/bullying, not about pointing fingers at who is responsible for the current financial crises. Please use your own journal for a political soapbox.
no subject
no subject
Stewart, for his part, was as I described above: cracking-wise, acting his usual doofy self before Cramer came on. His initial questions could have been taken either way (as serious or self-satirizing).
NBC apparently considers this a public relations nightmare. Most coverage of this describes it as such. Cramer, if he got what he wanted, would have made more of it on his show. On the other CNBC shows, it was as if it never happened. That says a lot. Almost all of the public replies I've seen on this on various news sources and blogs laud Stewart for saying it like it is, hard-cutting journalism, etc. and deride Cramer for looking like a deer in headlights, being unprepared and plain foolish. This isn't the kind of stunt one does when one needs credibility.
no subject
Maybe the aftermath will be okay-- as long as he keeps his dignity after the fall... it's hard to say with media games like that. Also, to keep an eye on Stewart-- Imagine what it must feel like to have multiple enemies based on vendetta... it must feel really bloated and nasty after a while.
no subject
Also agree with bloated and nasty: Stewart seems to be on the same ego-road that Bill Maher took. Maher was a great satirist with his "Politically Incorrect" show. Then he got kind of full of himself, got far more political than funny and kind of disappeared.
What this boils down to is, "I don't like bullies." I feel that ambushing is a bully tactic. Inviting someone into a place where you are surrounded with resources and allies and then jumping that person is not a fair fight or debate.
no subject
I'm rather put off by how Stewart started off with "it's not about you" and then proceeded to talk all about how it was about him.
I'm also put off by how much was clipped out - and how Cramer had no opportunity to explain things from his own point of view. Most everything was taken out of context and he was just plain vilified. :\
no subject
no subject
Steve's right about one thing: Stewart has "ambushed" guests many times before. But it's usually when the guest has repeatedly told outright lies or something like that. Stewart asks the guest about the lies and then when the guest denies it, Stewart plays a half-dozen video clips of the guest saying what he's just denied saying.
But that's just during the normal five minute interview and usually reserved for the most egregious of hypocrites. They don't happen that often and that's probably why you've missed them until now. I don't recall there ever being an entire show devoted to frying a guest!
I have no clue as to who Cramer is or why NBC would toss him into the lion's den but the word "figurehead" kept cropping up in the posts above and I think that betrays why people are so polarized on this issue.
Cramer is a symbol of the attitude of our "corporate masters". If Stewart had stabbed him to death there are millions who would have cheered him on. The guy may well be a basically good person but he's identified with people like the guys at AIG who are paying themselves millions of dollars in bonuses while their company loses billions of taxpayer dollars as they throw people out of their homes.
If you're looking to see fairness and level-headed discussion while "corporate jets full of hookers are flying over the ashes of the Middle Class"*, you're going to be disappointed more often than not. In fact, you might want to stop watching "light" news shows altogether because it's only going to get uglier.
-------
* I'm quoting some guy that was on Marketplace last week... I only wish I could take credit for that phrase.
no subject
Cramer became the figurehead for NBC because he's the only one who was willing to go on the Daily Show. I think Cramer thought that his being a fan of the show, being similarly inclined politically and someone seen as an advocate for the small investor would get him the same treatment that Stewart gave Maria Bartolome (who could be called the face of CNBC), where Stewart was playful and almost flirty. Cramer got it wrong...oh, so wrong!
I was wondering why we aren't seeing the same aggressive criminal investigations and arrests like we had with Enron and such. The only theory I have is that this fiasco was -so- endemic to the whole financial market that if you got rid of all the guilty parties, there would be no one to run these huge corporations, bailouts or not.
no subject
I think there are several criminal investigations going on that aren't exactly public knowlege right now (I sure hope so) but I think you're absolutely right about the pervasiveness of the problem. Justice for everybody would pretty much leave a wasteland behind.