![[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: 2009-03-16 07:29 pm (UTC)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
Date: 2009-03-16 07:55 pm (UTC)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.