Thought this was a great take by Glenn Greenwald:

There's nothing unique about Jim Cramer - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

Exactly! People who took out bad loans should face exactly the same consequences for their bad decisions as folks like John Thain, Dick Fuld, Chuck Prince, the management of AIG, the management of Countrywide, the management of Bear Stearns, the management of WaMU, Alan Greenspan, E. Stanley O'Neal, etc....

How is this determined? Is it a comedy show because Stewart says it is?

You're reciting Stewart's line that makes him untouchable in these kind of contexts. I don't buy it.

What if Fox News hired a hack comedian to make quips after news stories? (I don't watch Fox News, so for all I know they do this). Does that make them a "comedy show" and thus, exempt from any criticism?

Well, that...or the fact it's on comedy central and 90% of what is said on the show is to get laughs.

you left out the other great part of it

Exactly what consequences are these? Greenspan has had his legacy tarnished a bit. Wiki said O'Neal is on Alcoa's board after leaving with a $160M golden parachute and Prince walked away with $150M for his few years in this mess and still is an analyst for Citi.

SI

Isn't that what people here said Fox and Friends was? Only there, the argument was that it made it okay for them to doctor photos, not just "have a slant".

THE SHOW BEFORE HIM IS PUPPETS MAKING CRANK PHONE CALLS!! :D

pretty sure that's a big hint that he's not a "serious" journalist

Fix your sarcasm detector.

Definitely - "bad" economic behavior needs to punished no matter where it happens.

-Bad mortgage buyers should be DQ'd from the credit market via their bankrupcys. They can live like roomates in shitty apartments like the rest of us did when we couldn't afford property.

-Bad bank employees that made their company's insolvent should never work in banks again. They suck at it, just like the bad mortgage buyer. It's a little different here because the company isn't inherently bad, only the people that work for it. There's a strong tendency to personify corporations in these contexts - but corporations and banks aren't people.

-Bank employees who broke the law should go to prison forever, and should have every cent of their net worth forfeited

-Bank employees who sold customers crap, in such a way that it let to profits for the bank and ruin for the customer (if this is even possible - this is just a theoretical example), should be rewarded and promoted. This isn't "bad" economic behavior. It's excellent economic behavior. The stupid customer drops out of the economy, and the smart banker survives. That's good.

EDIT: Crap, Pass beat me to it...

How about if they hired a couple of shiny faced morons to spread propaganda with a morning variety show format and called it, say, "Fox and Friends"? It's not really news just because it's on a station called "Fox News", right?

SI

It's impolite to call people who lie, liers.

I'm not familiar with that show, but it sounds like a great example of someone on the right trying to get away with the same nonsense, absolutely.

Fox News is just entertainment, just like Comedy Central. They really aren't that different. And that's fine, but we should try to see it clearly. They're two extremely biased news shows using comedy to get away with stuff that "regular" news can't.

In that context, someone relying on Foxnews as their news source is just as silly as someone relying on the Daily Show.

The problem is "actual journalists" are so few and far between these days.

Oh, crap, that's what that noise was. Today I got to play the internet equivalent of that old guy driving down the highway with his blinker on :D

SI

Jim Cramer got destroyed, and I'm not seeing all the defenders point that Stewart did anything wrong. He brought up very true points that anyone, conservative or liberal, should have bought up.

Some stuff drifted populist, yes, but to say the whole interview with that is bull.

Besides, someone should get angry, if the media actually was as pissed off as me most days you would be seeing companies being torn a new one on a regular basis.

:lol:

hxxp://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=221516&title=jim-cramer-interview-outtake

for those that haven't seen it yet. in 3 parts

Dude, if you're trying to claim there is no difference between Fox New sand Comedy Central, then you're just refusing to live in reality. I mean, give me a fucking break.

Stewart must have been pissed when Crank Yankers got canceled, as he couldn't rely on that hollow line anymore.

He was basically saying two wrongs make a right ;).

Are we talking about in terms of actual news reporting or their purported standing in the new community? ;)

SI

lol

crank yankers was a poor execution of a good concept (the prank calls). they could have got say...russell brand to do it or something, and skip the frigging puppets

Somebody else made the comparison, I think to try to "trap" me into defending Fox News. Because obviously anyone who doesn't worship John Stewart must be into Bill O'Reily. But both are absolutely entertainment first and foremost. When someone says, "The Daily Show is Just Trying to be Funny", I just think that "Fox News is just trying to be entertaining". It's funny to be that people get worked up over Fox News having a conservative bias - they're just filling a niche, for cash, just like the Daily Show.

Mostly, I just think Stewart's a douchebag and it's disappointing me that someone with so little talent has this kind of success.

I hate celebrities that try to be politically relevant...When they actually succeed, it's just too much....That would go for either side of the political spectrum, though there's just more hollywood on the liberal side.

Not really. "Loser" homeowners basically made one bad decision - taking out a stupid mortgage. Everyone else I listed made a lot of bad decisions. In fact for some (O'Neal and Thain spring to mind) it could be argued that they made only bad decisions.

The moral of the story being, folks, that if you're going to fuck up, fuck up big and often, make sure you're going to take a lot of other people down with you, and don't be contrite about it. :D

Fox News is a news channel masquerading as entertainment.

The Daily Show is entertainment masquerading as a news show.

I can see how one would get the two confused.

Anyway, didn't Fox News, last year, develop a show to be like the Daily Show, only with a conservative slant? Is it still around?

I wasn't trying to "trap" you into anything, I was just referring to this story: (POL) FOX News Alters Photos of NYT Reporters - Front Office Football Central -- maybe I missed an earlier comparison, but I was just responding to:

problem is that fox news markets itself as a news channel and has reporters at current events like a news channel, etc

note that the daily show & comedy central do none of these things.

look at the names of the networks - it's right there

I wonder if the Daily Show is the first "Comedy Show" to win:

-Orwell Award for Distinguished Contribution to Honesty and Clarity in Public Language
-2 Peabody Awards for their election "coverage".
-3 TV Critics Association Nominations (two wins) for "Outstanding Achievement in News and Information".

I think that's a good way of putting it.

And The Daily Show has won journalism awards, but I don't think Fox News has won entertainment awards....So who's the bigger fraud?

the argument has been made in this thread that that's not a reflection of the content of the daily show insomuch as its an indictment of maintstream network "news" coverage (let alone cable news coverage)

But Jim Cramer doesn't do that. He does mention the stocks he got wrong and goes into detail on how why he got them wrong. I've seen him do an entire show on some of his back picks and the mistakes he made.

As for the interview, I saw it last night and thought both of them looked bad. Cramer sat back, took it, said "Yes, you're right" while Jon Stewart preached, ranted and reminded me a lot of Bill O'Rielly with how often he interrupted Cramer just so he could rant some more.

I watched the unedited version just now and thought they both looked better. Some of the questions and lines Stewart said were made clear (some lines, in the edited aired version, sounded like set-up potshots). They showed a LOT more of Cramer talking and answering questions in the unedited version. There was even a part near then end where Stewart was apologetic for how Cramer became the face of the anger and spite directed at CNBC in general.

Yeah, Cramer took a beating (on CNBC's behalf), but whoever edited that interview to be broadcasted did a horrible job if they were trying to edit it for good content. If they were editing it to have a 20 minute long rant and preach session to get the plebs all riled up, then job well done I guess.

That's kind of the point. The Daily Show can do things differently because they're "not news" (as they constantly remind us and some people actually buy) - which actually makes them BETTER news. But they're clearly news.

Comedy is actually a pretty effective tool to tell news, if you're trying to make point (and be funny). SNL figured this out years ago. Daily Show has just taken it a step further into legitimacy, while still pretending to be SNL. (I dont' recall Chevy Chase doing serious interviews with politicians).

The entire Fourth Estate, I think.

A lot of those calls weren't funny some a few were outstanding. District selectman Tony Deloge <3

Do you have investment accounts molson? What is your rate of return over the last three years?

If it is negative 20% or worst, I officially dub thee stupid consumer.

If not, congrat you either were too poor to have significant investments, or you are a smart investor.

The defense 'everyone' lost money the last three years is as invalid as the assumption we should ever encourage shady banking as 'smart' for hoodwinking people. Buyer beware, hell ya, ultimately you need to protect yourself... but misrepresenting a financial product that is crap, guess what that is not just a clever trick, it actually may be FRAUD! And the cases where it is not, it has certainly crossed over the line of ethics.

Malicious competitive behavior is actually bad for the economy... it may be good for individual actors, but it can have a negative net effect. It certainly doesn't have the social darwinism effect people think it will. More slick bankers pulling fast ones and being praised for it leads too... oh wait we are already there dammit!!!

If you ask me, I could say anyone who didn't see the banks balances going explosive is an idiot. Except I know I shouldn't blanket judge people, especially when it took me years to convince myself. (And yes I still fail to hold back my vicious streak, as in right now in my attacking you when you don't deserve it)

We need to stop sweeping bad behavior under the rug and act like cruel and corrupt economies inevitably correct things to normal. Smart and ferocious economies do inevitably correct, but we don't have that with the number of crooks in board rooms and the SEC and Congress. I get irritated with all the rich being lumped into the evil CEO group, and all the poor being lumped into the dumb borrowers group... we end up with generic and useless solutions like 'raise taxes on everyone over 250K' or 'bailout all mortgages' because we don't separate out correct behaviors or necessary strategies from our blanket stereotypes. We need specific, targeted, and transparent attacks on the problems in our economy.

Again, not entirely directed at you, just a general attitude. Sorry I need to get some sleep, getting cranky!

The problem I see is that MOST news channels masquerade as entertainment. CNN certainly falls into this (I mean, come on, they sell T-shirts of their headlines, which just pushes them to make funnier headlines...), as does my local newspaper and most of my local news outlets. It's just absurd how far the media has fallen.

Did someone stay up too late last night watching Syracuse-UConn? I know I did :D

SI

I put 100% of my extra money in the last three years into student loan debt (debt that I was arguably pretty stupid to take on - depending on how my legal career turns out - but I pulled myself out of it). I've been living WELL below my means in a shitty apartment, and I'm now saving for a down payment on a house (I will wait until I have 20% at least). My only investment account is mandatory retirement pension contributions through my public employer - an account that is run pretty conservatively.

The decision not to save for retirement during that time was a great one. In 4-5 years (assuming we're not living in caves), I'll have a house with with a good amount paid off, be otherwise debt-free, and just slightly behind on retirement savings (or really ahead, since any money I had put in the last 4-5 years would have been wasted). A layoff along the way wouldn't derail the plan, because I have emergency savings to get through some time and worst case scenario, I can just dump my month-to-month rental lease and get roomates again.

As for "malicious competitive behavior" - I agree with you. I'm not smart enough to know where exactly to put that line, but I have no problem with pushing the "illegal" line over to include more behaviors. But I wouldn't want so far as to make sure the consumer is protected on every transaction. Don't we need stupid consumers in the American economy? We need losers to help grow the winners. I wonder what % of consumer transactions in the US are wasteful and stupid. When there's stupidity on both sides, where both sides are harmed, that when shit seems to get fucked up. I have no problem with one side simply out-smarting the other, if legal, and as long as there's a "winner"

(I cut off the rest where you keep pounding on Stewart's personality since it's not relevant)

But let's go back to this. No one is forcing you to defend Fox News but you're trying to put The Daily Show on the same level as something that purports to be a legitimate news entity. If these were called "Fox Politics" or "Cable Entertainment Network" or the "New York Times GossipPaper" - no one would have any issues.

But if you want to claim to be news, you have a higher ethical standard on what you carry. You can't pretend to be bringing news if you're going to just bring propaganda or just spread gossip. And you damn well better not be offended when someone calls you on it unless you have a good defense for your own actions (and not just attacks on those making the accusations)

SI

Well, exactly. For one reason or another (and I'm sure books will be/have been written on this) the Fourth Estate has abdicated its desire to practice good journalism, in general.

We all know what sells, and gets ratings, for the "news media" and in general it's not in-depth reporting on complex topics. Now, The Daily Show doesn't do this either (in-depth reporting on complex topics), but as a satire it gets mileage out of pointing out (with examples) how the news media drops the ball. It's just an added bonus that often that exercise delves a little into reporting on complex topics (oh the irony).

Further, the news media is very (perhaps overly) dependent on personalities (Stewart's initial critique of CNBC was about this specifically). A news media outlet can't afford to piss off a personality for fear that they'll stop coming on their shows, which results in a direct loss of ratings.

A very good example of this is a comparison of Maria Baritiromo's interviews with Merrill Lynch's CEO John Thain when a) he took over at Merrill Lynch (softball, fawning) and b) after he was ousted and the news about his bonuses and his $1 million bathroom makeover came out (prosecutorial, accusatory). When Thain mattered to CNBC as a guest personality, Baritiromo couldn't stop fellating him. When he no longer mattered to CNBC (because his reputation cratered), they were OK with taking the gloves off.

The Daily Show, of course, doesn't have this problem. If someone doesn't want to come on the show because Stewart pissed them off, it's unlikely to result in a net loss of ratings, because he'll get other guests. This is exactly what allows him (when he's motivated) to really grill some of his guests (who do come on the show) or skewer others (who refuse to come on the show).

But we get the news media we deserve. Americans, on the balance, stopped caring about in-depth (or even accurate) news reporting a long time ago, and the news media have simply responded to the market. It is, of course, incorrect for most news media to portray themselves as "fair", "impartial", "investigative", etc... but let's be honest - the average American doesn't give a shit anyway.

As a result The Daily Show caters to a segment of the viewing populace who agrees that the news media are full of shit and want to see them ridiculed. And let's face it, the news media are easy targets, since everything they do is recorded and The Daily Show, by all accounts, have an excellent clips staff.


The key thing is, however, that Stewart knows and admits all of this. He's not trying to be fair, he's not trying to be right, and he's not on some big crusade. He's trying to be funny, and exposing the funny in a way that appeals to his audience. And that is exactly what makes him different from the news media.

I agree with most of that. I think flere had it right that they're mirror images.

FoxNews pretends they're news, the Daily Show pretends they're entertainment. Neither is completely truthful.

If one "should" live up to certain journalistic standards, both should. Fox News, for what it pretends to be, The Daily Show, for what it actually is.

I agree 100%, and am actually glad for someone like Stewart. The media needs more of this grilling so that maybe they'll start paying attention to their responsibilities again.

On the points that the daily show can't/won't/doesn't go after obama... its true that most of the stuff they have done on Obama has been fluff, but I can remember a number of very good segments they've done where Obama has given a speech that is pretty much exactly the same as Bush and pointed out that when Bush says the same words, he is ridiculed, but when Obama says them he's a great speaker giving us hope.

This is my favorite daily show segment this year so far:




I had said before the election that I was worried that The Daily Show would just refuse to say anything about the left once the left was in power, and assumed that I would stop watching the show once Obama was elected. I've been pleasantly surprised often enough to continue watching, and loving the show.

That was awesome!

I agree, but I'm not hopeful that they'll return to their "responsibilities". The fact of the matter is that there's just not that much of a market for that kind of reporting anymore. I don't think you can survive as a cable news channel (to say nothing of newspapers) if you devote an inordinate amount of resources to the pursuit of quality journalism (and all that entails). Frankly, I think that's how we got to where we are today. The news media saw dollar signs in basically being entertainment, and rushed to get there. Now that they depend on that money, they can't go back.

After all, it's perhaps no accident that the consensus best reporting on the financial meltdown was "The Giant Pool of Money" (and its follow-ups), produced by This American Life and NPR News, both of which are generally not dependent on advertising dollars.

I thought it was great when they did that- especially since "Mess O' Potamia" was one of my favorite word plays on the show :)

Does that clip include where he has to dust it off and everything?

(Also, go check the clip from the day after Inauguration where he does the same exact thing with him and Rob Riggle talking about Obama and Bush using the exact same rhetoric)

SI

They're mirror images in that they're opposites not the same.

But I guess that's where we disagree. If one is claiming to be news, it damn well better have higher ethical standards than a show that pokes fun at the news.

SI

There was an episode last week where he really took Clinton to town for the botched PR event with the Russian foreign minister. He's warming up to it. And he's been consistently harping on the lack of spine shown by Reid and Pelosi with their majorities, comparing them (poorly) to their GOP predecessors.

Fair enough - do think though, that it's POSSIBLE that for an actual news show to avoid critisism by constantly claiming that it's comedy? Do you think that that COULD happen, but maybe just that The Daily Show hasn't crossed that line? Or in other words, do you think the Daily Show can go too far? Or as long as they're on "Comedy Central", they're not news, no matter what? Is their self-identifying label as "comedy" the deciding factor?