Joho the Blog » Jon Stewart: Squirmatastic righteousness

Jon Stewart: Squirmatastic righteousness

I thought Jon Stewart’s interview with Jim Cramer last night was a righteous misfire. Stewart was on his high horse, but Cramer was on his little Shetland pony. The result: It was hard to watch.

Stewart was making an important, broad point: Mainstream financial journalism as embodied by CNBC fails the most basic tests of journalism overall. These folks knew better, but give us bread and circuses. Right on, Jon

But feisty, cocky Cramer came onto the show as a Stewart fan, and just kept agreeing and apologizing. I thought ultimately that was pretty disingenuous of Cramer, but it left Stewart looking like a bully. We wanted to see Stewart tear into William Randolph Hearst, but Hearst sent Dear Abby in his place. Except — to mess up the metaphor — Cramer does epitomize CNBC’s tabloiding of financial news, Cramer is a financial insider who knows better, and Dear Abby would have put up more of a fight.

[Tags: ]

 


You can see the entire, unedited interview here.

 


The Daily Show runs an anagram contest. The phrase to be anagrammed at the moment is: “Envoys to Afghanistan and Iraq Are Named”

Here’s my best attempt: “On the QT, Iran damns any gain of area saved”

And yours?

5 Responses to “Jon Stewart: Squirmatastic righteousness”

  1. You should watch the unedited version, it’s great. Apparently they took out 8 minutes of footage to fit into the show last night. I haven’t watched the broadcast version, but maybe Cramer isn’t so meek in the full version. Agree about the squirmtastic call though, especially when Stewart started rolling the video clips.

    m.

  2. Maybe there’s such a thing as too much empathy, and perhaps as you suggest, too much self-righteousness. But as both I and my husband have to live out our lives on savings from the past that have shrunk tremendously, I find it very hard to be sorry for Cramer, his lying CEOs, Greenspan, Bernanke, and especially former Sen. Phil Gramm.

    just sayin’…

  3. I’m a big Stuart fan, but Jon completely missed the mark, and this is the first time I’ve been embarrassed for Stuart.

    Any valid points he could have made were lost behind the fact that he was being a goddamn bully.

    Stuart’s argument (at least as far as I can decipher) is that he’s against the sensationalized financial journalism put forth by CNBC.

    Here are some of the reasons I really don’t have respect for Stuart’s viewpoint:

    #1, If you invest in the stock market, you know about the risk you are taking.

    Is it CNBC’s job to inform you about the risks of investing? No. If you invest all your life savings in a risky medium, it’s not CNBC’s fault – it’s your fault for being an idiot.

    #2, Cramer offers entertaining opinion.

    Finance is boring. Cramer is there to offer his financial OPINIONS in an entertaining way, and he succeeds. If you don’t get that it’s Cramer’s opinion and not instructions on what to do with your life savings, you’re missing the point.

    #3, Stuart attacked Cramer personally – but said it wasn’t about him?

    Stuart continually attacked Cramer personally, but then said it’s not about him? Sorry Jon, you can’t have it both ways.

    #4, When applying Stuart’s own argumentative logic to The Daily Show itself, Stuart ends up being a big hypocrite.

    Polls show most of the younger generation gets its news from The Daily Show, so using Stuart’s ‘responsibility’ logic, you could say that he has the journalistic responsibility to grill his politician guests hard questions and take them to task… but he doesn’t. He wants them to come back on, so he goes limp like Jay Leno.

    #5, It’s more likely that Cramer is NOT a puppet to the companies on Wall Street, and is actually an advocate of the people, as he claims.

    When Stuart pulled a similar bully act on CNN’s Crossfire, the argument was that Begala and Carlson were slaves to their own party – and wouldn’t compromise, say anything bad about their own party, or say anything good about the other party. I tend to agree with Stuart here. This time, Stuart tried to make a similar argument of Cramer, yet I’m unclear how much merit this argument has. If you’ve ever read any of Cramer’s columns, you can see that he’s consumer-focused. And in relation to items #1 and #2 above – it just doesn’t hold water.

    Take all this in consideration, and then consider that Kramer wasn’t really arguing with Stuart’s jabs – he was being apologetic and trying to talk about it. But one went Stuart with the chastising.

    Jon Stuart: bully.

  4. While I enjoy watching Cramer every night, one must remember the show is primarily entertainment. The financial networks exist to promote their advertisers financial and investment products. Who would expect them to warn about the credit bubble or coming Washington national debt collapse which will destroy much of the remaining private wealth in America today or what this will do to the dollar, the stock market, bonds, gold or the real estate market?

    China is now worried about their dangerous over investment in US Treasury obligations. Washington ’s long-term choice is either repudiation or monetization. For monetization to be effective, the depreciation in the dollar would have to be substantial and this in turn would dramatically raise prices of imports for American consumers which would mean a tremendous drop in foreign imports. Debt monetization would cause more disruption to exporting nations than selective repudiation of Treasury debt.

    The Campaign to Cancel the Washington National Debt By 12/22/2013 Constitutional Amendment is starting now in the U.S. See: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=67594690498&ref=ts

    Thanks,

    Ron with 30 plus years in the investment business and banking industry.

  5. What can I say? I like Jon

Leave a Reply


Web Joho only

Comments (RSS).  RSS icon