Quote :

"Now, without a clear personalized target..."

Oh no! I should have voted for McCain so that the Daily Show could keep making fun of bad politics!

3/15/2009 11:20:40 PM

Very intriguing interview. Better, even, than any presidential debate I've seen in recent history.

The full version on Comedy Central's Web site did not disappoint, nor did it reveal the "beatdown" this incident is being characterized as. Cramer was contrite, apologetic, and presented no defense to Stewart's arguments, but as is made clear early on, Jim Cramer isn't and wasn't the target.

Jon Stewart raised incredibly prescient questions about the news media's shrinking role as public advocate. He's indicted CNBC for its failure to critically report financial news before economic catastrophe, just as he's indicted all broadcast network news rooms for failing to to critically report national security news, precipitating our continuing foreign policy catastrophe.

Sending Crossfire to the grave (and calling Tucker Carlson "a dick in a bowtie") was itself more of a public service than Jim Cramer's hyperactive noisemaking could ever hope to be. This interview was just icing on an already delicious cake. I just hope its meaning isn't lost in the noise chamber...

3/16/2009 1:10:07 AM

The Squawk Boxers have a decidedly more low key/candid tone this morning. Scarborough seems...humbled.

Maybe it is just early on a Monday morning and they are tried, but the rampant cheerleaderism is toned down quite a bit this morning.

3/16/2009 8:28:32 AM

After months of this financial mess, it's probably just a coincident that Stewart chose to attack Cramer after Cramer started attacking Obama's policies.

3/16/2009 10:53:55 AM

jesus, you're paranoid....

3/16/2009 10:55:14 AM

Thats it! It has nothing to do with the firestorm precipitated by Santelli's "rant heard round the world" that was even commented on by the Press Secretary.

3/16/2009 11:06:48 AM

^^ Not really. The whole thing that set this thing in motion was Rick Santelli's opposition to Obama's mortgage policy plans. Everything after that was Stewart saying "oh yah!? Well look at who YOU work for!!!" and then it morphed into this Cramer thing.

If Santelli had never criticized Obama, it doesn't look like Stewart would have ever launched his attack on CNBC. IOW: This is all about politics.

There is no getting around it. 4 years ago, Stewart spent time pointing out the faults of policy makers in both parties. If he focused more on Bush it was only because Bush was, you know, the President. Now, Stewart spends most of his showing banging minor league cranks like Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and Cramer. It is a sad thing. And ALL of these attacks are politically motivated. ALL of them. If you don't agree, you are not watching the show (and I still watch it about every other night because it just happens to be on before Colbert).

If you're looking for the next Edward R Murrow, look somewhere else. Stewart is the next Walter Winchell.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Winchell

[Edited on March 16, 2009 at 11:16 AM. Reason : BELIEVE that]

3/16/2009 11:10:25 AM

Quote :

"If Santelli had never criticized Obama, it doesn't look like Stewart would have ever launched his attack on CNBC. IOW: This is all about politics."

Well, if you completely exclude the fact that both Stewart and Colbert earn their salt by commenting on the most "hot" news items of the day, then yeah, I guess it only was all about politics.

Within hours of Santellis rant I saw it linked to on financial blogs all over the place, in the google message boards, and it was ultimately commented on by the Press Secretary. Do you honestly expect Stewart to not say anything about it, political or otherwise?

You're so far off base on this one Socks'' that you've been mistaken for the ball boy.

[Edited on March 16, 2009 at 11:18 AM. Reason : .]

3/16/2009 11:18:26 AM

^ What are you talking about? I said if Santelli never attacked Obama, Stewart would have never attacked CNBC. And your response is "well he had to say something about Santelli!" How does commenting on Santelli automatically lead to attacking CNBC? It doesn't. You totally missed my point Fail Boat. My point was that Stewart's attack on CNBC was not motivated by concern for the public interest (if it were, i wonder why he's been sitting on this bombshell assault for months). It was 100% a politcal hack job by Stewart...

But that's all I ahve to say about your comment to you. No offense. I just want to move onto this...

[Edited on March 16, 2009 at 11:29 AM. Reason : ``]

3/16/2009 11:24:39 AM

I wonder why Jon Stewart didn't air this clip.

Here is Rick Santelli (the guy that inspired Stewart's anger in the first place) calling Jim Cramer out **TWO MONTHS AGO** for being too bullish on the market.
http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2008/01/santelli-vs-cra.html

Oh well. I'm sure he just forgot.


Edward R Murrow my ass.

3/16/2009 11:28:29 AM

^ nice one.....

you compare Stewart to Edward R. Murrow......
then two posts later, you attack the idea that Stewart is the next Edward R. Murrow.


i think there's a logical fallacy in there somewhere.....

3/16/2009 11:31:14 AM

And since Stewart is so fair ... I'm sure we'll soon see hilarious parodies and quips about Obama signing that pork-fattened budget, his permission to tax health benefits, skyrocketing everyones' energy costs with cap-and-trade, the hypocrisy and corruption of Maxine Waters -that's news too.

3/16/2009 11:33:16 AM

^^ agent, both times I meant to be saying that Stewart is NOT the next Edward R Murrow. Sorry if I was not clear.

The reason I said "Edward R Murrow my ass" was because if Stewart really lived up to that comparison, he would have used the clip I just posted. Since he didn't, it just goes to show that Stewart is one more talking head with a political axe to grind.

[Edited on March 16, 2009 at 11:37 AM. Reason : ``]

3/16/2009 11:36:41 AM

1) who said Stewart was fair? He never claims to be fair. In fact, there's only one major news show/network that has to remind their audience that they're "fair and balanced" every 30 seconds

2) have you watched TDS lately? He has done more than his fair share of taking Obama and the Congress Democrats down for stupid policies and hypocrisy.


^ yeah, i know. the point still stands. It's a straw man.

[Edited on March 16, 2009 at 11:38 AM. Reason : .]

3/16/2009 11:38:07 AM

Quote :

"I said if Santelli never attacked Obama, Stewart would have never attacked CNBC. And your response is "well he had to say something about Santelli!" How does commenting on Santelli automatically lead to attacking CNBC? It doesn't. You totally missed my point Fail Boat."

It's a comedy show that operates on commenting on the days news in funny ways that mainstream media doesn't talk about.

It's pretty easy to see the path the writers followed from Santelli to Cramer. Someone probably found the "In Cramer We Trust" slogan quickly, and as a stock picker that has sound effects and toys on his show, it was only a matter of time before they found a terrible stock pick to clown him on. In the process of making a segment on it, I'm sure it became pretty apparent to Stewart and the writers just how shitty CNBC is in their coverage and he decided to elevate it all to "Crossfire" status.

Quote :

"I wonder why Jon Stewart didn't air this clip. "

Maybe they didn't have enough time to fit it in the segment? I'm not sure how that clip would have fit into the segment. He had already piled on to Cramer as it was, that clip would have just added to the fire.

I guess when TDS starts coming with a "fair and balanced" tag, I'll start expecting an offsetting clip like that to be part of the show.

3/16/2009 11:41:57 AM

agent, Well, actually your point doesn't stand since I did not mean to favorably compare Murrow either time. So there is no contradiction.

If your new point is that I am creating a strawman because no one has ever compared Stewart to Murrow, then you are incorrect. Its popping up all over various places and even respectable reporters like James Fallows of The Atlantic magazine are making the comparison.
http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/03/its_true_jon_stewart_has_becom.php

If your new new point is going to be "well, i never saw anyone say it on TWW", then I can only suggest you expand your information base. I had assumed everyone read relatively widely (this is the internet age after all). I apologize if that is not the case.

Hope this helps.

[Edited on March 16, 2009 at 11:57 AM. Reason : ``]

3/16/2009 11:46:52 AM

i wish Edward R. Murrow was still around

so Rush Limbaugh could attack his patriotism

3/16/2009 11:51:52 AM

^^ hilarious. You find one opinion writer who compares Stewart to Murrow, whose article is repeated in several places, and you accuse me of not being "well read" because I haven't seen that particular opinion.

Internally to this thread, you're still presenting a straw man, even if you never favorably compared Stewart to Murrow. Nobody was talking about or comparing the two, then you bring Murrow up out of nowhere and slam the position that Stewart is compared to him, even with no indication here that anyone was doing so.

3/16/2009 11:58:31 AM

^ well, people were over praising Stewart quite a bit. One person even said it was the best "news" segment they had seen on the financial crisis (first page). So seeing as the comparison has been made all over (you can google for more results) and people were already sucking JS' dick, I thought the comparison wouldn't seem out of place.

I really only made the Murrow comment to segway into comparing Stewart to the mostly forgotten radio "news" man and FDR water carrier Walter Winchell. I didn't realize it would become a "thing" for people to harp on.

I will refrain from making the comparison again, if that helps.

[Edited on March 16, 2009 at 12:05 PM. Reason : ``]

3/16/2009 12:03:06 PM

[Edited on March 16, 2009 at 12:03 PM. Reason : nm]

3/16/2009 12:03:06 PM

Quote :

"I wonder why Jon Stewart didn't air this clip. Here is Rick Santelli (the guy that inspired Stewart's anger in the first place) calling Jim Cramer out **TWO MONTHS AGO** for being too bullish on the market. http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2008/01/santelli-vs-cra.html Oh well. I'm sure he just forgot. Edward R Murrow my ass. "

That's a lot of roll-eyes to serve with your weak-sauce.

It's amazing some people will complain about what they see as a specter of communism, but when someone talks about ravaging the good name of capitalism by talking about manipulating stocks using misinformation, the same people can't see past their own noses.

3/16/2009 2:03:21 PM

Quote :

"If you're looking for the next Edward R Murrow, look somewhere else. Stewart is the next Walter Winchell. "

Socks, if anything in that wikipedia entry is true, then you're a fucking asshole. You're alleging that Stewart is a 100% self-serving, egotistical, "it's-all-about-me" character hell bent on taking down anyone he doesn't like? Really? Did you even READ that entry about Winchell? B/c that dude was a 1st-rate bullshitter, whereas it's fair to say Stewart brings at least some relevant facts and opinions to the issues in question.

Look, you can disagree with Stewart if you want. Hell you can even call his intentions into question. But calling the dude out as a total liar, gossiper, and self-serving hypocrite based on... what... a few debateable assertions and the fact that you don't like him?

Dude the only one in here resembling Winchell is YOU.

3/16/2009 6:04:54 PM

Socks``:

3/16/2009 6:12:00 PM

oh no. stewart fans hurling intellectual dynamite at me. "You think TDS sucks?? WELL YOU SUCK!!!" "You think he is like Winchell?? WELL YOU'RE LIKE WINHELL!!!'.

Ahhh Tee-dubb. I wish I knew how to quit you.

3/16/2009 6:34:25 PM

2.5 pages of reasonable banter and you're still off your rocker, so why should anyone keep trying?

it's clear you despise stewart and you'll never be able to objectively discuss the topic anyway

[Edited on March 16, 2009 at 6:37 PM. Reason : .]

3/16/2009 6:36:38 PM

well since socks seems to have swung from the east to the west in the past couple of years, maybe there'll be a swing to the north or the south come 2011 and then it'll be something completely different

a political Madonna if you will

3/16/2009 7:02:11 PM

I found this blog post persuasive:
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/132270.html

Interesting point: Cramer told his viewers back in October to sell stocks and have presumably saved themselves a bundle. Too bad Stewart's mother didn't listen.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27045699/

[Edited on March 16, 2009 at 8:12 PM. Reason : .,.]

3/16/2009 8:11:49 PM

you found that blog persuasive? it read like the motherfucker didn't even watch

3/16/2009 8:18:34 PM

Quote :

"Interesting point: Cramer told his viewers back in October to sell stocks and have presumably saved themselves a bundle. Too bad Stewart's mother didn't listen."

I told this very website the same thing...ONE MONTH EARLIER...and you didn't have to hear stupid sound effects for the advice.

[Edited on March 16, 2009 at 8:53 PM. Reason : .]

3/16/2009 8:36:34 PM

Another great Jon Stewart moment. He's the funniest and smartest fake news man on television. He makes being a total asshole look like a completely innocent public service. Nice niche.

3/16/2009 10:20:43 PM

Quote :

"Too bad Stewart's mother didn't listen. "

yeah, good point.

I mean, it everyone who owned stock sold it all, immediately, right then on Cramer's advice, in order to preserve its current wealth, we all would have been better off.

.... wait a minute!

3/16/2009 10:27:08 PM

Quote :

"have you watched TDS lately? He has done more than his fair share of taking Obama and the Congress Democrats down for stupid policies and hypocrisy. "

OK I'll have to take your word on this since I dont' watch TDS anymore. If he is ripping the Dems too...Good On Him.

3/17/2009 1:33:43 AM

Quote :

" He makes being a total asshole look like a completely innocent public service. Nice niche."

i didn't realize conservatives were such whiners.

oh yeah and half the job of the press is to be a pain in the ass to those in power.

3/17/2009 7:43:23 AM

^ people in power like Rich Santelli, Jim Crammer, Rush Limbaugh, or Bill O'Reilly.

hehehe.

In 2004 what you said might have been true. But today he isn't an asshole to people in power anymore. Now Stewart is only an asshole to minor league hacks and cranks that offend his political sensibilities. In short, he's just a liberal Shawn Hannity with better writers. That isn't the Daily Show I used to love.

But I think that's the last thing I'm going to say on this subject. I've spent too much time on this.

[Edited on March 17, 2009 at 8:28 AM. Reason : ``]

3/17/2009 8:26:52 AM

What makes you think I'm a conservative? I love TDS and voted for Obama. I would be much closer to the label "liberal" in all honestly, but I tend to think I'm a moderate.

3/17/2009 8:56:46 AM

3/17/2009 9:20:10 AM

^ I call shenanigans your claim that Stewart has switched from bashing those in power (i.e. Bush and Co.) to lower level political adversaries.

First, Stewart has gone after these "lower level" hacks for years now. His appearance on Cross fire was in 2004. He's duked it out w/ most of the Fox News cast too. So I find it silly to say this is some sort of change.

Second, Obama has been in office for a few MONTHS. What has he done to warrant Stewart calling him out? I understand that you, the GOP, and conservatives in general strongly oppose some if not all of his major policy decisions, but said opposition reflects differences in political ideology. That's a farcry from making claims of gross incompetance and corruption towards various members of the Bush Admin (not saying all of them. Were justified either).

So far Stewart's taken his usual stabs, which btw includes calling them out on the pork-ridden stimulus bill. Has been easier on Obama? Probably. He's an entertainer with a primarily liberal audience based in an exceptionally liberal state (NY). But no, Stewart's not ignoring Obama. And if you think he is then I'd say you're likely just assuming so, probably b/c it's a convenient talking point, as opposed to actually WATCHING his show.

3/17/2009 11:03:02 AM

Socks'' has been doing the same sort of subversive trolling under the guise of making a real point since his pick for President revealed himself an epic failure. His entire tone changed from a newly converted conservative making well reasoned points to finding whatever was popular with the liberals these days and making half ass attempts at some obtuse point...for shits and giggles.

3/17/2009 11:05:34 AM

Anyone who claims that Stewart hasn't been attacking the Obama administration missed when he was covering all of the appointees that hadn't paid their taxes

3/17/2009 12:24:35 PM

TDS made fun of obama last night, btw

3/17/2009 4:45:38 PM

honestly, some of you people think that obama and dubya came to power under the same circumstances or something

what more do you honestly want them to talk about?
they've covered bidens flubs, the administration's appointments that went south, clinton's visit to asia, obama's swingset, obama's dog choice, and so on and so forth

(please note - THEY ARE GIVING THE ADMINISTRATION SHIT ABOUT WHAT THEY'RE DOING WRONG, some of you just haven't accepted yet that your boy bush did a lot more "wrong")

3/18/2009 2:43:35 AM

they even have a banner on their website that says "Obama is president and we're still funny"

or something like that

3/18/2009 2:44:34 AM

last night stewart spent the better part of a segment bashing the potential obama policy of removing veterans who have private insurance from the VA roles.

3/18/2009 12:48:15 PM

the new segment: "that can't be right!"

3/18/2009 5:43:16 PM

Gotta admire Cramer for trying to fall on his sword. I'm impressed that Stewart, if you watch the full interview, didn't let him.

3/18/2009 11:44:44 PM

I wonder who/what forced Cramer to backtrack. What he said the first time was the truth, but his "retraction" made him look very stupid.

3/19/2009 3:46:25 PM