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

[cooner.livejournal.com]

I don't think this was totally without precedent; Stewart is usually jokey and handles his guests with a bit of the good-natured kid-glove treatment, but it's been seen a few times that when there's an issue he has strong feelings about, he'll drop that and become dead serious (about as serious as we wish the rest of the news media would be most of the time).

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.

[bovil.livejournal.com]

The Daily Show has, over the years, turned into a serious news program wrapped in humor and snark. Comedy Central takes a great deal of pride in the mainstream journalism awards it's won.

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.

[kvogel.livejournal.com]

That Cramer has been perceaved to have been disproportionaly singled out as The Face of the Problem by pundits and viewers is missing a point of what Stewart was trying to point out several times- Cramer was at best, merely a symptom/example of more basic problems in the industry, and then made himself more of a lightening rod with CNBC's help in the hype leading up to that night. If anyone set Cramer up, it was his network and handlers, making him the fall guy/victim/martyr of Stewart's attack.

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.

[pikacello.livejournal.com]

The fact that it came from a vendetta of some sort is reason enough to think that Stewart had a personal reason to slap Jim Cramer in the face, definitely.
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.

[kyubikitsy.livejournal.com]

I totally agree with you on the Stewart vs. Cramer event.

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. :\

[c-eagle.livejournal.com]

It's even worse when it's people in our day to day lives ... like, feeling the pressure to choose sides n all... :/ *sigh* ... *nods*

[iisaw.livejournal.com]

Wow. I kind of wish I'd seen the show!

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.