Cramer vs Stewart (not Martha) and other Unpleasantness

[furtech]

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.

Comments

[furtech.livejournal.com]

How many different ways do I have to say that I was not a diligent fan of the Daily Show?!? I don't know that Cramer was fanatic viewer, either. I'm glad it wasn't a surprise for you. I still think he was a bully.

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.

[kvogel.livejournal.com]

The more I think about it, the more I suspect Cramer knew what was coming and he and CNBC were preparing to take a hit and then capitalize on it later. Who knows, he may have even allowed himself to be victimized exactly to get your kind of reaction.

[furtech.livejournal.com]

I see Cramer a lot because CNBC is the default show I used leave on in the mornings. He was clearly taken by surprise: he was grinning like an excited kid as he walked on (I think he was looking forward to meeting Stewart, expecting a session like his colleagues got). His reaction during the show was one of disbelief and discomfort. Lots of squirming. Cramer doesn't operate as a passive-aggressive: he's up front and bold, not the type to look for the pity-vote. In ways, his style is similar to Stewart's in that he is quick to admit to mistakes and self-parody. Maybe that's why he admired Stewart so much.

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.