![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
furtechI 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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-03-14 10:06 pm (UTC)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
Date: 2009-03-14 11:15 pm (UTC)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.