1.) Kramer is merely saying one thing in private and advocating a different approach to his broader audience. As Obama supporters I don't see why you can object.

2.) Why can't it be both? Why can't it be both the risky borrowers AND the overly risky derivatives that are at fault here?

(not that risk should be outlawed, that's stupid, rather risk should be accurately represented).

This is why we should neither bail out the companies nor the people who over extended themselves.

Whatever, RAWR wall street bad, poor people noble. WOOT.

3/13/2009 7:52:36 PM

my point precisely supercalo

at first..stewart looks like he is just confronting cramer for being hypocritical

by the end, he is just coming off as a gigantic assbag.

i usually like stewart, but this was too much douchebaggery for my tastes

3/13/2009 7:57:29 PM

while he never mentions any CNBC reporter or talking head by name during the interview (other than santelli), stewart made it abundantly clear that the week long "Brawl Street" wasn't and was never intended to be aimed at solely cramer but the institution of financial journalism as a whole.

he used the cramer clips to demonstrate that cramer is an intelligent man and deeply knowledgeable about the shenanigans and inner workings of the "real market", the backdoor wheeling and dealing for short term profits with people's long term investments.

he tied it all together, as other posters have already pointed out with:

Quote :

"i want the Jim Cramer on CNBC to protect me from THAT Jim Cramer"

^what, specifically, was over the top douchey on stewart's part? IMO, there were some uncomfortable parts, but nothing where i felt like jon was trying to ZING cramer and only cramer for the sake of douchebaggery. and nothing he showed or said did not tie into and help to enumerate his larger point.

[Edited on March 13, 2009 at 8:09 PM. Reason : .]

3/13/2009 8:02:16 PM

Quote :

"This particular issue seems to have gotten him more visibly upset than most other issues he has guests on the show for."

he always talks about his mom's money

i wonder how much his family really lost

that could just be a humanizing effort, but i wouldn't be surprised if his mom's retirement really did get FUCKED

(good thing her son is the voice of this generation though, that comes with a good payday)

3/13/2009 8:06:06 PM

Quote :

"he calls out cnbc while taking shots at cramer."

He went well out of his way to make it clear that he was faulting CNBC, and he felt it was unfortunate Cramer had to be the fall guy.

But if you can't even stomach a commentator being called out on Comedy Central by a comedian, then I don't know how you expect real justice to be served by all the guys who are responsible for this mess.

3/13/2009 8:23:43 PM

Wow, this thread has gone two pages and somehow is devoid of LoneSnark showing up to make some kind of condescending and arrogant remark in some kind of language that he thinks the rest of us are too stupid to understand.

3/13/2009 8:34:55 PM

^^ just want to clarify you mean "on" instead of "by" on that last sentence of your post. Am I correct?

[Edited on March 13, 2009 at 8:44 PM. Reason : you = your, guilty of grammer myself]

3/13/2009 8:42:28 PM

Stewart is mocking a station that takes itself seriously.

Whats thread worthy or news worthy about this?

3/13/2009 8:48:56 PM

hey, terrific contribution!

3/13/2009 8:51:21 PM

^^^Are you fucking kidding me? Shut the fuck up.

3/13/2009 8:53:48 PM

[Edited on March 13, 2009 at 9:18 PM. Reason : .]

3/13/2009 9:05:40 PM

I watched the long interview. Not much fun. One lib tearing into another lib who just sits there and takes it.

I got the feeling that Jon Stewart was putting the bulk of the blame for the mortage problem on the heads of the banks. Granted they share blame. But no mention that it was the gov't that filled the economy with too much credit, and it was many (not all) people who took out loans who know damn well they couldn't keep up the payments. And it does irk me when the people who are paying their mortages and using their brains have to suffer and bail out those irresponsible ones.

Stewart's show should move over to MSNBC.

3/14/2009 1:34:36 AM

I don't think I could live my life if every thought I had was framed about what political leaning someone had and how what they were talking about related to the size of government.

3/14/2009 8:46:25 AM

Quote :

"Wow, this thread has gone two pages and somehow is devoid of LoneSnark showing up to make some kind of condescending and arrogant remark in some kind of language that he thinks the rest of us are too stupid to understand."

Damn HockeyRoman, what did I do to you? I have not said anything because I had nothing to say that had not already been said. Cramer works on a fake news show, stewart pointed that out fine for everyone that was not convinced by the funny noise buttons and yelling. But, also, Cramer pointed out that Stewart works on a fake news show for everyone that was not already convinced by his scrapping of journalistic standards, such as his portrayal of Santelli as a hypocrite for his opposition to the foreclosure program when Santelli has been vocally against all bailouts from the beginning.

3/14/2009 2:33:18 PM

Quote :

"Cramer pointed out that Stewart works on a fake news show"

he did?

3/14/2009 2:59:33 PM

Sorry, demonstrated. The two demonstrated that each other work on fake news programs whose content should not be taken seriously.

3/14/2009 3:09:17 PM

and therin lies the problem.

Cramer is marketed as the guy to turn to in these tough times

Stewart is marketed as the comedian that makes fun of the media

Stewart is more indicting CNBC as a financial news reporting agency and how they market Mad Money

[Edited on March 14, 2009 at 3:13 PM. Reason : .]

3/14/2009 3:12:22 PM

Why would you take financial advice from someone who admires Lenin?

3/14/2009 4:21:00 PM

3/14/2009 4:34:46 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE

[Edited on March 14, 2009 at 4:39 PM. Reason : -]

3/14/2009 4:38:42 PM

Sorry to drag this back up, but I see this same talking point every time Stewart "steps out of the comedian box" and attempts to address a serious issue (like he did with Crossfire and Mad Money)...

Quote :

""If you're going to be all about seriously taking people to task, A) Do it routinely (I can't even count the number of times Stewart was slobbering all over McCain's knob before he actually got the nomination, or his slavish deference to his more liberal guests), and B) Don't go hiding behind this, "Oh, but I'm a comedian" bullshit when someone actually fires back.""

-DrSteveChaos

^ This is bullshit. It's is a full fledged mischaracterization of Stewart's point. Let's go back to Stewart's exchange with Tucker Carlson.

- Stewart asserts that Carlson AND Begala (he criticized both) were both sacrificing constructive debate in the name of entertainment and partisanship.
- Carlson counters by referencing Stewart's recent interview with John Kerry on his show, saying Stewart "sniffed his throne" (which he did - very softball interview). Therefore Carlson says Stewart has no room with which to criticize him for "partisan hackery"
- Stewart counters by saying he's on Comedy Central, which is a comedy channel, and not CNN, which is a news channel.

Now, in case any of you missed it, Stewart's rebuttal is that his show is a comedy show. It's purpose is to entertain. It does not advertise itself as a serious source of news. Therefore, it Stewart's not being hypocritical in salivating all over a politician he likes. At no point did he suggest that every guest would be "grilled thoroughly so that the truth may finally come out." Crossfire on the other hand claimed to be a serious source of news and political debate. Its stated purpose was to bring about serious debate straight from the experts representing each side. But instead, it was bringing on partisan hacks from each party that, instead of cutting through the mudslinging, were merely adding to it. People watching the show were promised a constructive dialogue and instead got talking points worthy of "Spin Alley."

THAT is what Stewart is pointing out. He held Crossfire's feet to the fire for misrepresenting itself, and now he did the same to Mad Money. And in each case, he said repeatedly that the particular show and show hosts he spoke with on the air were merely one of the culprits. So no, he's NOT singling anybody out.


Another thing - Stewart is indeed biased to the left, but his "crusades" have NOTHING to do with his political leanings. In the case of Crossfire, Stewart was blasting Crossfire. That means he was criticizing both Begala AND Carlson, which would mean he was blasting BOTH the left and the right. With Mad Money, you're talking about the economy. Granted Stewart obviously is more to subscribe to liberal theories as to WHY the recession happened, but Stewart was not berating Cramer over partisan issues. He was berating him for giving shotty advice despite knowing better.

3/14/2009 5:34:58 PM

Quote :

" Carlson counters by referencing Stewart's recent interview with John Kerry on his show, saying Stewart "sniffed his throne" (which he did - very softball interview)"

From what I recall about that interview (i don't feel like watching it again), Carlson's "proof" that Jon gave Kerry a softball interview was citing three of Jon's questions, something like:
1) "Hi, Nice to see you"
2) "How are you doing"
3) "how is the weather"

Now, Jon may-well have given Kerry a softball interview (or, otherwise known as "a conversation"), but Carlson's "proof" of such, by taking two pleasantries that all interviewers ask their subjects, even before harsh interrogations, as evidence Jon was being easy on Kerry, showed that Carlson was just grasping at straws.

[Edited on March 14, 2009 at 5:42 PM. Reason : .]

3/14/2009 5:39:40 PM

Quote :

"^ This is bullshit. It's is a full fledged mischaracterization of Stewart's point. Let's go back to Stewart's exchange with Tucker Carlson."

I fail to see how this is a rebuttal of what I've pointed out, which was that Stewart makes it a point to retreat back into his, "Oh, but I'm a comedian" box when called out to back up a serious point.

To use the Crossfire example you provide - yes, Stewart was calling out both Begalia and Carlson - no dispute on this one. However, when Tucker calls him out on his argument (i.e., the fact that Stewart is prone to his own forms of hackery), Stewart retreats back into, "But I'm a comedy show" routine. In other words, Carlson points out that Stewart basically is guilty of the same things he's on there accusing Carlson and Begalia of, and Stewart shrugs and says, "But that doesn't apply to me."

This doesn't misrepresent Stewart's point at all. I'm not claiming that his appearance on Crossfire was partisan hackery - I'm arguing that he goes soft on those who share his ideological allegiances, something which I think there is more than adequate evidence for. Meanwhile, he is at best inconsistent with his "serious pundit" persona - when he gets called on his own foibles, he retreats behind the "But I'm a comedian" curtain.

Quote :

"Now, in case any of you missed it, Stewart's rebuttal is that his show is a comedy show. It's purpose is to entertain. It does not advertise itself as a serious source of news. Therefore, it Stewart's not being hypocritical in salivating all over a politician he likes. At no point did he suggest that every guest would be "grilled thoroughly so that the truth may finally come out." Crossfire on the other hand claimed to be a serious source of news and political debate. Its stated purpose was to bring about serious debate straight from the experts representing each side. But instead, it was bringing on partisan hacks from each party that, instead of cutting through the mudslinging, were merely adding to it. People watching the show were promised a constructive dialogue and instead got talking points worthy of "Spin Alley.""

No, Stewart makes the pretension of having no particular allegiance to the establishment - e.g., "mocking the media." But given his deference to his own ideological allies, we all know that to be untrue. So how is this any less of a betrayal of the premise?

Again, if that's the game he wants to play, that's fine - his show, his rules. But if he wants to be out making "serious" points, it voids his ability to hide from criticism of his own inconsistency in being even-handed with those in power. In other words, the whole, "But I'm an entertainer!" defense no longer applies once you want to come out and be a "serious" pundit.

Quote :

"THAT is what Stewart is pointing out. He held Crossfire's feet to the fire for misrepresenting itself, and now he did the same to Mad Money. And in each case, he said repeatedly that the particular show and show hosts he spoke with on the air were merely one of the culprits. So no, he's NOT singling anybody out."

So why does he get to do that, but then get to turn around and claim immunity from criticism once he makes such a point? In other words, he's free to come out and criticize whoever he chooses on a "serious" level (which is fine and all - clearly his right), but then claims immunity due to his position as an entertainer when somebody shoots back.

It's particularly relevant in both of these cases - the Crossfire case in that he's accusing Begalia and Carlson of simply putting up hackery in place of intelligent discussion when he himself is pretty much blatantly guilty of the same practice (only under the guise of entertainment), and then in Cramer's case when he clearly doesn't allow Cramer the, "It's entertainment!" excuse. (And again, nothing wrong Stewart doing that - but it's the same privilege he claims.)

Quote :

"Another thing - Stewart is indeed biased to the left, but his "crusades" have NOTHING to do with his political leanings. In the case of Crossfire, Stewart was blasting Crossfire. That means he was criticizing both Begala AND Carlson, which would mean he was blasting BOTH the left and the right. With Mad Money, you're talking about the economy. Granted Stewart obviously is more to subscribe to liberal theories as to WHY the recession happened, but Stewart was not berating Cramer over partisan issues. He was berating him for giving shotty advice despite knowing better."

Look, there's two separate issues, here. What I'm saying is that Stewart would never put to scrutiny someone on "his team." Setting aside the Cramer issue (which, while I think ideology makes up the subtext of his long-winded brow-beatings, is not necessarily something I'd classify under "partisan" either), Stewart does make a habit of scrutinizing people he has ideological differences with - and he does it well in fact. The problem is, of course, he never does it if they have a "D" next to their name. (And in fact, prior to McCain being a threat to Team Blue, he showed a great deal of undue deference to McCain as well.) Case in point: did we see much scrutiny of Kerry or Edwards (or Clinton) for their early positions on the War, much less civil liberties abuses?

Meanwhile, what I have a problem with is that when called upon this rather selective scrutiny (or to defend any other "serious" point), Stewart acts like he's above this. He's "just an entertainer" - not obligated to answer for his "serious points."

It doesn't work that way - you either get to be beneath scrutiny ("just an entertainer") or you get to make serious points. Pick one.

3/14/2009 6:09:14 PM

Quote :

"It doesn't work that way - you either get to be beneath scrutiny ("just an entertainer") or you get to make serious points. Pick one."

Wow, I hope all that bullshit you typed wasn't in defense of this statement. No, that is the great thing about being an entertainer, he really can make whatever fucking points he wants and call it entertainment.

3/14/2009 7:45:11 PM

Do you have a point to make, or are you simply trying to be clever again?

3/14/2009 7:47:52 PM

DrSteveChaos, your adamant rebuttal, not to mention an impressive diversity of vocabulary, is impressive. The problem is you haven't said anything new.

If you advertise your show as a "comedy show," then your objective is to entertain. If John Kerry comes onto the show (like he did), no one is assuming that Stewart is under any obligation to have a serious political discourse. The fact is that Kerry came on the show b/c he knew he wouldn't be grilled.

See, The Daily Show covers political issues, but it's designed to poke fun at the absurdity of the system. And news media represent a source of that absurdity. Stewart is merely taking things a step further, in that he's gone so far as to call out networks and even individuals when he feels justified to do so. You seem to be saying that b/c Stewart is an entertainer, he's therefore being a hypocrite in calling out people like Carlson and Kramer. Right? Well, ask yourself this question - Is Stewart's show deliberately misleading people?

Quote :

"I'm arguing that he goes soft on those who share his ideological allegiances, something which I think there is more than adequate evidence for. ...he is at best inconsistent with his "serious pundit" persona - when he gets called on his own foibles, he retreats behind the "But I'm a comedian" curtain."

Aside from the fact that Stewart's show has a completely different different purpose than say Crossfire, Stewarts only used this "but I'm a comedian line" ONCE. Stewart hasn't run from anyone he's confronting. He's frequently gone on shows and had on his "adversaries" as guests. Stewart isn't running from anyone.

2nd, Tucker picked a fight with Stewart so he owned him. It's not Stewart's fault that Begala was content to let the two of them duke it out. And Kramer is not a political figure. You can't call that "going soft on those sharing his idealogical allegiances."

Third, who cares if Stewart's an entertainer? The real question is "Does he have a point?" And the fact is that he does. I don't care if the town drunk says my friend has a drinking problem. What I care about is whether its actually true. But, what you're saying is that it doesn't matter whether Stewart's right... the important thing is that we all dismiss him as a dumb comedian who by no means should be allowed to contribute anything to conversations about important issues. Yeah,

The only thing your argument proves is that you don't like that Stewart picks fights more often with people on the right as opposed to the left. Well, get over it. He's willing to put himself out there, and more importantly he's got a legitimate point... in this case and in others.

Personally I put more stock the legitimacy of his argument as opposed to his choice of profession. Perhaps you should too.

3/14/2009 9:33:39 PM

Quote :

"I can't even count the number of times Stewart was slobbering all over McCain's knob before he actually got the nomination, or his slavish deference to his more liberal guests"

Actually, strong republican voices such as Bob Dole have been put on the Daily Show many times, and not just for Stewart to tear down. McCain has been on the Daily Show 10 different times, and it wasn't until McCain changed his long standing ideals just to please extreme right voters that Stewart started giving him crap.

3/14/2009 11:01:51 PM

^ yeah, Stewart made it clear that he was turning against McCain not because he was the Republican nominee, but because McCain was contradicting many, many things he said and stood for in the past, and TDS showed video evidence of this.

3/14/2009 11:03:47 PM

Quote :

"If you advertise your show as a "comedy show," then your objective is to entertain. If John Kerry comes onto the show (like he did), no one is assuming that Stewart is under any obligation to have a serious political discourse. The fact is that Kerry came on the show b/c he knew he wouldn't be grilled."

I don't think he's under any obligation at all - this is where you misunderstand my point. Again, like I said - his show, his rules. But it takes away from his credibility as some kind of neutral observer - which, again, fine if that's how he wants to play. But it definitely opens him up to the charge of being inconsistent and hypocritical - i.e., it's fun to point out the absurdity of the establishment, but only when doing so doesn't threaten his biases.

In that sense, it does make him a hypocrite; claiming to mock the establishment when he's perfectly willing to give those who are of his ideological persuasion a pass.

Quote :

"You seem to be saying that b/c Stewart is an entertainer, he's therefore being a hypocrite in calling out people like Carlson and Kramer. Right? Well, ask yourself this question - Is Stewart's show deliberately misleading people?"

Actually, no. I'm saying that if he does do, he can't hide behind his profession to shield himself from criticism when people respond. In other words, if he's going to put himself out there to make a "serious" point, then he's on the hook for criticism at that point. There is no more, "But oh look, I'm just a comedian."

And he doesn't do it as brazenly as he did on Crossfire, but he still does it. "Oh my, it's so absurd that people are responding to the fact that I'm calling them out!" It's simply more implicit - like somehow, he should both be taken seriously when he makes a "serious" point, but it's absurd to actually criticize him when you disagree. It's a double-standard.

Quote :

"Aside from the fact that Stewart's show has a completely different different purpose than say Crossfire, Stewarts only used this "but I'm a comedian line" ONCE. Stewart hasn't run from anyone he's confronting. He's frequently gone on shows and had on his "adversaries" as guests. Stewart isn't running from anyone."

Actually, I never said that he never has his adversaries on as guests. In fact, if you read carefully, I said he actually does a good job grilling them - in fact, a better job than many people in the MSM. The problem is that he doesn't apply that mindset consistently.

Furthermore, he hides behind that persona plenty - not as explicitly, but he does do it. It's considered absurd - outrageous even - that anyone would take one of his "serious" criticisms seriously. Who responds to a cable news parody show after all?

Do you see where this is simply a more subtle application of the same technique?

Quote :

"2nd, Tucker picked a fight with Stewart so he owned him. It's not Stewart's fault that Begala was content to let the two of them duke it out. And Kramer is not a political figure. You can't call that "going soft on those sharing his idealogical allegiances.""

Again, not who I'm referring to - in fact, I was fairly explicit about this. He's had on plenty of people who are from his side of the spectrum who he could easily call to the mat on controversial matters but chooses to softball them. I wonder why that is?

Quote :

"Third, who cares if Stewart's an entertainer? The real question is "Does he have a point?" And the fact is that he does. I don't care if the town drunk says my friend has a drinking problem. What I care about is whether its actually true. But, what you're saying is that it doesn't matter whether Stewart's right... the important thing is that we all dismiss him as a dumb comedian who by no means should be allowed to contribute anything to conversations about important issues."

Again, I don't believe you understand my point. I don't have a problem with Stewart using comedy as a means to make a point - in fact, he does it quite well. What I have a problem with is using his status to evade criticism of any point he wishes to make - i.e., it's absurd to respond to any point he makes.

Quote :

"The only thing your argument proves is that you don't like that Stewart picks fights more often with people on the right as opposed to the left. Well, get over it. He's willing to put himself out there, and more importantly he's got a legitimate point... in this case and in others."

Look, my only point here is that if you're going to be all "serious business," either be even-handed or be more genuine about your biases. The immediate example here is Keith Olberman - the guy is clearly a raging liberal, but he'll own up to it. And that's fine. If Stewart wants to be "serious business" with Republicans more than Democrats, that's fine too. But let's dispense with the pretense of being an impartial observer, then.

[Edited on March 14, 2009 at 11:35 PM. Reason : .]

3/14/2009 11:34:46 PM

Quote :

"It's simply more implicit - like somehow, he should both be taken seriously when he makes a "serious" point, but it's absurd to actually criticize him when you disagree. It's a double-standard."

I take most comedians more seriously than newscasters...because a comedian is more likely to give it to you as it is, not as how you want to hear it.

3/14/2009 11:41:45 PM

this interview was needed.



ALSO:


"those irresponsible ones" were enough to make markets crash. it's not just 'lazy' people that the statement assumes.

3/15/2009 12:49:10 AM

I hate when Jon Stewart pulls this type of populist bullshit.
"We're a nation of workers!!"
"They walked off with our money!!!"
What the fuck is he even talking about?

What pisses me off is that Stewart plays into the whole conspiracy theory of the financial crisis.

It can't be a series of systematic mistakes made by investors who didn't fully realize the risk associated with their investments.

No it was "THEM" and "THEY" have walked off with "OUR MONEY!!" And you (Cramer & CNBC & Republicans) were helping "THEM!!!" Please. The old Stewart would have never went for such easy answers.

I remember a few years agos when Stewart was talking truth and reason to power. Pointing out the absurd blunders and logical contradictions of a morally bankrupt administration. Now, without a clear personalized target, he spends his time taking on an assortment of small time windbags and cranks (Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Cramer, various House Republicans) with humorless moral self righteousness. A great show is dead. It's really fucking sad.

3/15/2009 3:23:55 AM

^ huh? Did you even watch the interview?

3/15/2009 3:30:45 AM

^ maybe you need to re-watch it friend. The entire reason Stewart was pissed at CNBC was that they were helping "them". This interview makes it clear that Stewart's entire conception of the financial crisis amounts to a crude conspiracy theory.

3/15/2009 3:35:16 AM

I wonder if Jon realizes just how grating his insertions of his own ideology are to the people outside his primarily-new-york-liberal studio audience. Sometimes I think he just gets jealous of how well Colbert can work an audience, and goes out of his way to pander for applause. He managed to keep it out of the Cramer interview more than he usually manages to in political debates (or even just the usual media-mocking commentary), but it really is starting to kill my interest in the show.

Also, it seems like they've been using almost exclusively Fox News clips the past week or two, excluding the CNBC/Cramer-targeted stuff. Sure, Fox News is still a bunch of bigots who love to hear themselves talk and don't actually care about making anything remotely resembling an intellectual point or quality journalism, but we know this already and they're not the only news station that goes for sensationalist entertainment value.

I'll keep watching of course, but mainly just for the occasional appearances of John Oliver and Lewis Black, and for the non-political interviews.

[Edited on March 15, 2009 at 3:38 AM. Reason : .]

3/15/2009 3:35:29 AM

^ word.

moron

Here is a particularly good quote.

Quote :

"JS: It’s very easy to get on this after the fact. The measure of the network, and the measure of mess. CNBC could act as—No one is asking them to be a regulatory agency, but can’t—but whose side are they on? It feels like they have to reconcile as their audience the Wall Street traders that are doing this for constant profit on a day-to-day for short term. These guys companies were on a Sherman’s March through their companies financed by our 401ks and all the incentives of their companies were for short term profit. And they burned the f---ing house down with our money and walked away rich as hell and you guys knew that that was going on."

http://www.mahalo.com/answers/money/jim-cramer-jon-stewart-fight-video-with-transcript

Yah. Didn't you know there were sides in this??? And CNBC sided with those evil wall street types to fleece the people of THEIR MONEY. ***MORAL OUTRAGEEEEEE!!111***

What a waste.

3/15/2009 3:59:00 AM

^^^ I don't think that's what stewart was getting at at all. He specifically said several times his issue here isn't with any one particular person or CNBC even in general.

his point had nothing to do with a conspiracy theory. His point was that the media in general treat finances like a game or entertainment like football, when it clearly has a bigger reach than that, and they need to be more responsible.

honestly, I can't see how you remotely think Stewart was talking about some conspiracy theory.

^ You have to consider that against the backdrop of the tape of Cramer for 2006 where he talks about manipulating the markets. You don't think that kind of thing goes on in EVERY large investment firm? You don't see how the mentality of pushing the limits of the law, maybe exceeding it, to make a quick buck, if pervasive enough (and it reached that point) encourages the kind of meltdown that happened? The sides stewart was referring to aren't explicit sides, but implicit between the crooked/corrupt and the honest.

Just in case you didn't realize it, the "finance types" aren't gentile kittens, they are very aggressive, and it's clear that they did lose a grasp of the seriousness of their actions. People in general will take a mile if you give them an inch, but especially with wallstreet, and the media with good actual journalism can do a good job of keeping this in check, in place of the government even (but in our system, obviously this is done along with the government).

[Edited on March 15, 2009 at 4:09 AM. Reason : ]

3/15/2009 4:00:38 AM

Quote :

"conspiracy theory."

THEORY?

he has clips of cramer describing IN DETAIL how you get a stock to trend downward, how you create false demand, and other stuff i don't fully grasp because i'm poor and in debt

he has clips of cramer saying basically "i can say this here since it won't be on tv"

you and i may have different definitions of the word "conspiracy"

but i'm pretty sure whatever's going on has moved beyond "theory"

3/15/2009 4:06:23 AM

Quote :

"I wonder if Jon realizes just how grating his insertions of his own ideology are to the people outside his primarily-new-york-liberal studio audience."

uhh, sure buddy. i'm really sure he's fretting away about how to pull in more fox news neo-cons

[Edited on March 15, 2009 at 8:01 AM. Reason : .]

3/15/2009 7:59:25 AM

Quote :

"It can't be a series of systematic mistakes made by investors who didn't fully realize the risk associated with their investments."

give me a fucking break socks, get that limp excuse outta here. That dog won't hunt and everyone knows it.

3/15/2009 10:48:04 AM

I think Stewart is just stating what has needed to be said about media issues for a LONG time--that the main problems with the media aren't conservative/liberal bias its the fact the media can no longer effectively do it's job. He showed true nuts and has done what most of them have been too afraid to do. The basis for both this interview and the Crossfire interviews highlights how hard it is for the media to do their job when they are accountable to the advertisers they are sometimes reporting on or using as guests. They frequently don't bite the hands that feed them, and only report press releases written by companies and rarely take the opportunity to dig for true dirt to find hidden facts to try and call them out.

3/15/2009 11:50:11 AM

moron

Apparently I'm not the only one that read the interview that way. Kainen and Woodfoot both apparently buy into that conspiracy theory bullshit ("it couldn't have been a systematic misunderstanding of the risk associated with new types of assets...no THEY TOOK OUR MONEY...I JUST KNOOWW IT!!").

Whatever. This crisis was not brought about by some mysterious gang of greedy traders out trying to fleece the public (a conspiracy) and no one has brought any evidence to show that it was (and no woodfoot, the short selling Cramer was talking about and building artifical buzz was not the problem).

I will leave you all with a pretty nice recent article in Wired that will help you feel what i'm saying. You'll never read it but here it is:
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/17-03/wp_quant

Peace out.

[Edited on March 15, 2009 at 1:57 PM. Reason : ``]

3/15/2009 1:38:08 PM

goddamn, you really didn't get it, huh?

as has been mentioned NUMEROUS times in this thread, stewart was't blaming cramer, or CNBC, or "some mysterious gang of greedy traders" for causing the mess. that was never the goal.

the media has ALWAYS been stewart's and TDS's main target. the clips of cramer talking about creating artificial buzz were used to illustrate cramer's knowledge and understanding of what REALLY happens behind the scenes at these financial institutions. combining that with the clips of CNBC anchors cheerleading, asking softball questions, and taking bullshit answers from CEOs at face value with no further investigation and i can't fathom how you don't understand stewart's week long smack down and criticism were aimed at the failure of CNBC and financial journalists to DO THEIR JOBS.

your ire for jon stewart, for whatever reason, most likely highly unfounded, is almost as pathetic as tucker carlson's and it is surely affecting your ability to objectively watch the interview.


[Edited on March 15, 2009 at 2:13 PM. Reason : .]

3/15/2009 2:10:00 PM

Quote :

"uhh, sure buddy. i'm really sure he's fretting away about how to pull in more fox news neo-cons"

Yes, exactly right, because the only two options in life are being an idealist idiot or a fascist idiot.

3/15/2009 3:55:33 PM

Quote :

" the media has ALWAYS been stewart's and TDS's main target."

Yea... no. I can't see anyone seriously arguing that their main target wasn't Bush, and a lesser extent Republicans, the past 6 years.

3/15/2009 4:06:09 PM

god fucking god man, CONTEXT.

what's the fucking thread about?

[Edited on March 15, 2009 at 4:13 PM. Reason : .]

3/15/2009 4:11:19 PM

^^ they were the main target, because they were the biggest target. But they weren't the only target.

3/15/2009 7:57:45 PM

Quote :

"god fucking god man, CONTEXT. what's the fucking thread about?"

So in what context is what you wrote correct? You said ALWAYS (your emphasis).

^ yeah... but TSB hasn't hit Obama nearly as hard as I remember TDS hitting Bush in his first year, and Obama has probably had more fuck ups in his first months that Bush II had, so meh.

3/15/2009 8:29:40 PM

the context is the week long BRAWL STREET. it wasn't spelled out word for word, but whatever.

even so, the media has always, in the context of everything, been a major target of TDS. it just so happens that 8 of the 10 years stewart has been at the daily show, bush was president. so yes, bush and co. were a major target, but it is a current events show after all. and the last administration surely provided ample material.

anywho...

Quote :

"TSB hasn't hit Obama nearly as hard as I remember TDS hitting Bush in his first year"

you remember how hard TDS hit bush his first year? really? smells like bullshit.


[Edited on March 15, 2009 at 8:38 PM. Reason : .]

3/15/2009 8:36:00 PM

Quote :

"^ You have to consider that against the backdrop of the tape of Cramer for 2006 where he talks about manipulating the markets. You don't think that kind of thing goes on in EVERY large investment firm? You don't see how the mentality of pushing the limits of the law, maybe exceeding it, to make a quick buck, if pervasive enough (and it reached that point) encourages the kind of meltdown that happened? The sides stewart was referring to aren't explicit sides, but implicit between the crooked/corrupt and the honest."

This is a context in which I had not given much thought to the current financial situation, and in many ways this interview was an eye-opener to me, and in a way which inspires me. I actually find it much more entertaining when Jon Stewart shows an aggressive passion on issues. Not that I don't still appreciate the Daily Show's typical brand of sarcasm after 10 years on the air, but it really pulls me in when there is a level of passion involved. As another poster once stated in another TDS thread before, Jon Stewart desperately wants to be taken seriously. In his position as a comedian you can sense the vulnerability when he does get serious, and to me it is extremely captivating.

I believe it is rightly so that this interview be so highly publicized.

3/15/2009 9:20:25 PM