Jon Stewart basically kills Jim Cramer

[DeToxRox]

I am not a big political person and have no allegiance, but for pure entertainment, the verbal beatdown Stewart put on Cramer was amazing. I don't even like Stewart that much but he is vicious when he wants to be. Haven't found video yet but I'll link once I do.

[mckerney]

Should be on the Daily Show website tomorrow, some of the leadup here is solid:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

CNBC Gives Financial Advice

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things With Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Economic Crisis

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

In Cramer We Trust

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things With Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Economic Crisis

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Basic Cable Personality Clash Skirmish '09

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things With Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Economic Crisis

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Jim Cramer Battle

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things With Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Economic Crisis

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Daily/Colbert - Betting on Jim Cramer

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things With Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Economic Crisis

[Radii]

wow. I just got to watching this, I honestly thought Cramer was going to come on and Stewart would softball him and they'd laugh about how the media is silly and hug.

Stewart basically shit on Cramer for 30 minutes straight and Cramer essentially agreed that everything that Stewart said was accurate. I'm in awe.

[molson]

Stewart comes off as really douchy to me.

He's been living off that act where he plays a video and makes a funny face for like a decade. He failed as a comedian because he's not funny.

The Daily Show gig, though, is quite brilliant, not because of his talent but because of the format. It's kind of disturbing how it's looked at as some kind of legitimate news show - I know Stewart always denies that that's what it is, but he's clearly trying to be relevant.

[Radii]

I have no idea what Stewart's motivation is, or how seriously he takes things, but at least in this instance I believe it was entirely the actions of Cramer, followed up by the 24/7 news networks egging it on, that made this relevant. There was no reason at all for it to be anything more than another 5 minute piece where the daily show cherry picks something funny/ironic and makes fun of it.

I've been a big fan of the Daily Show for 8 or 9 years now, but I will say I only watch about half of the interviews. I think that I generally agree with Stewart's political views, but when he interviews people he disagrees with I do feel like I'm watching the left wing version of Bill O'Rielly. Stewart gets extremely holier than thou and can be a pretty big asshole. And this is coming from someone who almost always agrees with what he's saying while he's doing it.

But I really don't care about any of that. The first 15 minutes of the show is the most entertaining 15 minutes of television I watch most days.

[rowech]

Stewart lost me during the election when it became evident there was a completely different agenda to his show. At one time, it was great fun to watch despite it being somewhat slanted to the left. Now it's just become a soapbox for him.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by molson

Stewart comes off as really douchy to me.

He's been living off that act where he plays a video and makes a funny face for like a decade. He failed as a comedian because he's not funny.

The Daily Show gig, though, is quite brilliant, not because of his talent but because of the format. It's kind of disturbing how it's looked at as some kind of legitimate news show - I know Stewart always denies that that's what it is, but he's clearly trying to be relevant.

I think it's pretty silly and bordering on ridiculous to say that Stewart failed as a comedian. And I'm not sure why it's a bad thing that he tries to be relevant. It's a topical comedy show after all.

What happened here was that Santelli was a slimy asshole for calling people who had trouble with their mortgages losers. So Stewart went after him and his network, because if theyre going to call these people losers, then what does that make CNBC who has given some historically bad advice recently.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

You get the feeling that Cramer is not a good debater. He didn't even really try, it was one extended "Yes, you're right."

There's also an uncut one on thedailyshow.com.

[Young Drachma]

Cramer has a huge following and so, it was better for him to go on here and take some medicine and move on. Stewart's just doing whatever gets the most laughs and makes the Daily Kos crowd ga-ga in response.

That said, he's funny and the fact that this show does more critical journalism than much of what passes these days at TV news is pretty laughable. I think that's really where the shtick has managed to work. That yea, it can be bent the wrong way and all of that, but...they got a lot of attention and so, naturally they were going to keep doing it, because they knew it'd keep people talking about them.

The format suits him well, but if he weren't engaging, it'd fall pretty flat.

But yeah, I can't really watch it for too long most days because it's a little too much liberal self-congratulation and choir preaching to suit me.

[sterlingice]

Considering what it looks like Cramer has done in the past (we've been talking about the deep capture allegations in the Recession thread for a couple of weeks now), this could have been worse. There's a lot of evidence that he and a lot of financial reporters have been manipulating stocks for quite a while to suit their hedge funds, trying to drive companies out of business with naked short selling. It's dirty, dirty business and he got off easy last night.

That said, he got hammered and hammered hard. He deserves worse- when the media is passively complicit, that bad, but even worse is that they were an active participant in this sort of stuff, and they absolutely have to get blasted for it.

SI

[DaddyTorgo]

i didn't get to see this but i'm looking forward to catching it online or this afternoon

[albionmoonlight]

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...ch-a-pred.html

[molson]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Considering what it looks like Cramer has done in the past (we've been talking about the deep capture allegations in the Recession thread for a couple of weeks now), this could have been worse. There's a lot of evidence that he and a lot of financial reporters have been manipulating stocks for quite a while to suit their hedge funds, trying to drive companies out of business with naked short selling. It's dirty, dirty business and he got off easy last night.

That said, he got hammered and hammered hard. He deserves worse- when the media is passively complicit, that bad, but even worse is that they were an active participant in this sort of stuff, and they absolutely have to get blasted for it.

SI

I'm a little out of the loop on these allegations, but if Cramer was trying to singlehandedly destroy Bear Sterns - wouldn't he trash them on his show instead of recommending them?

I don't know enough about all that to have an opinion, but I do think watching the Daily Show is like watching a frat boy jerking off in front of a crowd of other cheering frat boys.

They're perfectly allowed, like anyone else, to have a political slant, but I thought this quote from wiki was kind of funny:

"He (Stewart) acknowledges that the show is not necessarily an "equal opportunity offender", explaining that Republicans tended to provide more comedic fodder because "I think we consider those with power and influence targets and those without it, not." In an interview in 2005, when asked how he responded to critics claiming that The Daily Show is overly liberal, Stephen Colbert said likewise: "We are liberal, but Jon's very respectful of the Republican guests, and, listen, if liberals were in power it would be easier to attack them, but Republicans have the executive, legislative and judicial branches, so making fun of Democrats is like kicking a child, so it's just not worth it."

They can have whatever opinion they want, but being so disingenuous about it pretty annoying....What's the line now that the Democrats are in power?

There's just something creepy to me about the whole thing - telling everybody that you're just a comedy show (Stewart's favorite line used to be, "Look, the show after ours has puppets making prank calls"), and being the primary news source of a generation, and winning journalism awards.

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Cramer has a huge following and so, it was better for him to go on here and take some medicine and move on. Stewart's just doing whatever gets the most laughs and makes the Daily Kos crowd ga-ga in response.

That said, he's funny and the fact that this show does more critical journalism than much of what passes these days at TV news is pretty laughable. I think that's really where the shtick has managed to work. That yea, it can be bent the wrong way and all of that, but...they got a lot of attention and so, naturally they were going to keep doing it, because they knew it'd keep people talking about them.

The format suits him well, but if he weren't engaging, it'd fall pretty flat.

But yeah, I can't really watch it for too long most days because it's a little too much liberal self-congratulation and choir preaching to suit me.

I am a member of the choir that Stewart preaches to.

I think this is a very, very good post, and the line I put in bold occasionally keeps me up at night wondering when my civilization is heading. That The Daily Show is occasionally the only media entity asking the real questions of our leaders that desperately need to be asked -- granted in an amusing fashion -- is a very dangerous thing.

[path12]

Originally Posted by molson

There's just something creepy to me about the whole thing - telling everybody that you're just a comedy show (Stewart's favorite line used to be, "Look, the show after ours has puppets making prank calls"), and being the primary news source of a generation, and winning journalism awards.

That's not Stewart's fault or the fault of the Daily Show though. That is (as Chesapeake noted above) an indictment of how immense a failure the media has become.

[Maple Leafs]

Regardless of whether you think Stewart is usually funny or not, that was a fascinating interview.

[DaddyTorgo]

I think we have to give Stewart and Colbert some room to run. The new administration has been in power less than 3 months - let's look at their record after 2-3 years of the new administration and see how much they have taken them to task.

They haven't really been "big" during a Democratic administration at all so I think we have yet to see.


*that being said, I expect that they will end up having a liberal bias, but to blast them for not calling Obama to task at all seems pretty weak at this point in time*

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by molson

Stewart comes off as really douchy to me.

He's been living off that act where he plays a video and makes a funny face for like a decade. He failed as a comedian because he's not funny.

The Daily Show gig, though, is quite brilliant, not because of his talent but because of the format. It's kind of disturbing how it's looked at as some kind of legitimate news show - I know Stewart always denies that that's what it is, but he's clearly trying to be relevant.

It's kinda like a better "Weekend Update", but with some really douchy interviews. Stewart has gotten a bit full of himself lately.

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

What happened here was that Santelli was a slimy asshole for calling people who had trouble with their mortgages losers.

So the truth = slimy asshole now?

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

So the truth = slimy asshole now?

Yeah, calling people who mismanaged their mortgages or found themselves in a much worse financial position because of the recession and now can't pay their mortgages "losers" makes him a slimy asshole, especially when he and his so-called expert network have made some bafflingly boneheaded calls. I mean, the average citizen shouldn't be expected to be more knowledgeable about what was going to happen than Santelli, Cramer, et al.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I think Stewart has been great at going after Congressional Democrats during this whole thing. Obama is more difficult, due to his popularity. I don't think they're the only ones struggling with finding the right tact on him.

When SNL satirized Reagan, wasn't it that he knew exactly what he was doing and the sweet old man thing was an act? Not exactly the hardest hitting stuff either.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

So the truth = slimy asshole now?

The whole point of the Daily Show doing this was pointing at the inconsistency of a network pimping the bank bailout while sneering at the homeowner bailout. That was the genesis of this whole thing.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by molson

There's just something creepy to me about the whole thing - telling everybody that you're just a comedy show (Stewart's favorite line used to be, "Look, the show after ours has puppets making prank calls"), and being the primary news source of a generation, and winning journalism awards.

I'd much rather this generation get its news from the Daily Show than Fox News, CNN, or any of the others. Like was mentioned earlier, that's not so much a praise of the Daily Show, but rather a harsh indictment of the state of television news journalism.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

The whole point of the Daily Show doing this was pointing at the inconsistency of a network pimping the bank bailout while sneering at the homeowner bailout. That was the genesis of this whole thing.

It was a combination of that and critique of CNBC's stock market advice leading up to this whole collapse. Santelli calls the folks stuck in bad mortgages "losers", while CNBC's "experts" kept telling everyone that the market would be fine, to invest in stocks that completely lost their value in the matter of days, etc.

[jeff061]

Originally Posted by path12

That's not Stewart's fault or the fault of the Daily Show though. That is (as Chesapeake noted above) an indictment of how immense a failure the media has become.

I would say it's more of a indictment on capitalism and democracy and how they are doomed to failure because humans as a whole suck. They just provide what the consumers want, that's how it's supposed to work.

But hey, that's just me.

[Passacaglia]

Is there a lesson in here about blindly following what talking heads on TV tell you to do? More importantly, is that lesson spelled out in an article I can send to people who give out financial advice based on what they hear on these shows?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Yeah, calling people who mismanaged their mortgages or found themselves in a much worse financial position because of the recession and now can't pay their mortgages "losers" makes him a slimy asshole, especially when he and his so-called expert network have made some bafflingly boneheaded calls. I mean, the average citizen shouldn't be expected to be more knowledgeable about what was going to happen than Santelli, Cramer, et al.

So you don't think capitalism has winners and losers?

This is a very interesting world view. Tell me more.

Personally, I cheered out loud after I heard Santelli's rant.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

The whole point of the Daily Show doing this was pointing at the inconsistency of a network pimping the bank bailout while sneering at the homeowner bailout. That was the genesis of this whole thing.

Don't work. Santelli was against TARP as well.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Were you against the bank bailout too?

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Don't work. Santelli was against TARP as well.

Stewart even noted this. He made it very clear that he wasn't attacking Santelli, he was attacking CNBC as a whole. He even reiterated that point several times during the Cramer interview.

[albionmoonlight]

If using humor to try and speak truth to power is liberal, then I guess that I enjoy liberal things.

And if I had to rank the Daily Show's targets, I think that it would be

(1) The media (by far)
(2) Republicans
(3) Democrats
(4) celebrities/other

Though I do think that (3) is gaining on (2) now that the Dems are doing and saying things.

I think that one of the issues with making fun of Obama is that he does not give you a comedy hook. Bush said dumb things and always had that weird grin on his face, like he couldn't beleive that they let him be President. Clinton was a fat, lecherous hillbilly. For the last 16 years, you had a President who was easy to parody.

Obama takes himself very very seriously and carries himself very very seriously. He reminds me of nothing so much as one of those professors who was very fair, and very engaging, and very smart, and always dressed well, and never cracked a joke in class. The kind of guy you are glad that you took the class from, but you didn't really feel that you got to know him at all--and you don't know any other students who did.

The combination of gravitas, distance, and his race make him very hard to parody. Even when you disagree with him, you tend to do it on his turf--intellectualism, rather than by engaging him personally.

[miked]

Originally Posted by molson

Stewart comes off as really douchy to me.

He's been living off that act where he plays a video and makes a funny face for like a decade. He failed as a comedian because he's not funny.

The Daily Show gig, though, is quite brilliant, not because of his talent but because of the format. It's kind of disturbing how it's looked at as some kind of legitimate news show - I know Stewart always denies that that's what it is, but he's clearly trying to be relevant.

I saw him last year at the Cobb Energy Center and thought he was pretty funny. I believe he talked about Obama and Hillary and the dems much more than Bush. But he's a comedian, so of course he's got an agenda...make fun of the people in charge that most of America thinks is fucking up. I'm not saying he doesn't give it out unequally, but judging by his audience, that's what they feel will bring viewers.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

So you don't think capitalism has winners and losers?

This is a very interesting world view. Tell me more.

Personally, I cheered out loud after I heard Santelli's rant.

Santelli isn't just talking about people as losers in the basic sense that they lost money, property, etc. He's calling them "losers" because he thinks they're idiots who should've known better. So if they're "losers" then the so-called experts on his own network are losers as well.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Is there a lesson in here about blindly following what talking heads on TV tell you to do? More importantly, is that lesson spelled out in an article I can send to people who give out financial advice based on what they hear on these shows?

if you find one i'd love it. my grandmother is addicted to cramer.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Santelli isn't just talking about people as losers in the basic sense that they lost money, property, etc. He's calling them "losers" because he thinks they're idiots who should've known better. So if they're "losers" then the so-called experts on his own network are losers as well.

They are losers that made poor decisions (and yes, they should have known better than subprime mortgages and ARM loans). Is there any evidence other than your preconcieved bias that he's calling them morons?

[DaddyTorgo]

watching the unedited interview and either

a) Cramer is full of BS

or

b) he's actually a decent guy

Talking about how he wants to see indictments for AIG and how he's talked to the Justice Department about how to go in and get them and what not.

Maybe if I'd read one of those body-language books I'd be able to tell if he was truthful or lying, but he seems contrite.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Stewart even noted this. He made it very clear that he wasn't attacking Santelli, he was attacking CNBC as a whole. He even reiterated that point several times during the Cramer interview.

Yeah, but he's using Santelli as a stand in for CNBC. Not everyone at CNBC shares Santelli's views on the mortgage bailout.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

They are losers that made poor decisions (and yes, they should have known better than subprime mortgages and ARM loans). Is there any evidence other than your preconcieved bias that he's calling them morons?

They are losers? What about the financial professionals who made the best on subprimes and alt-A's that blew up the system?

How can you expect an "average Joe" to understand these things if people with advanced degrees can't understand them?

If I'm making crap-money and a bank offers me a subprime mortgage and says "but your home value will go up and you can flip your home and payoff the mortgage because home values keep going up" who am I as a non-professional (say a steelworker for example) to be able to understand that the bankers are getting me in over my head?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Were you against the bank bailout too?

Not against the concept of a bank bailout, but against how it was done. Probably would liked to have seen waaay more strings attached to giving away taxpayer money (first thing, of course, would be fire those responsible and amend their severance packages in exchange for the moolah).

Though I'm sure plenty of people realized that the total collapse of the banking system is a far worse outcome than a very deep recession where people who made bad mortgage deals pay the consequences.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Not against the concept of a bank bailout, but against how it was done. Probably would liked to have seen waaay more strings attached to giving away taxpayer money (first thing, of course, would be fire those responsible and amend their severance packages in exchange for the moolah).

Though I'm sure plenty of people realized that the total collapse of the banking system is a far worse outcome than a very deep recession where people who made bad mortgage deals pay the consequences.

They're two sides of the same coin. Both were people acting irresponsibly with their (and other people's) money. I can't see how one can have a principled leg to stand on saying they are different. Pragmatically, perhaps, but it's the inconsistency in principle that Stewart is going after.

[Marc Vaughan]

Stock picking in the media has always reminded me of a gambling tipping scheme I've seen practiced online.

* Basically you purhase several million email addresses of known gamblers (horse racing and so forth).
* Pick a race at random, tip each of the 10 horses in the race to win and email the recommendation to 1/10 of the people in your scheme.
* 1/10th of people you sent to will have had a 'winning' prediction from you.
* Repeat the picking and splitting of the predictions for another 3-4 times, each time 'prove' to the person what a good scheme it is by showing how much they'd have won based on the prior predictions you'd sent them.

At the end of this the recruiter will have gained 'suckers' each time around, in an increasing percentage with each round of emails, from a starting point of say 10m email addresses and only repeat emailing people who'd recieved a winner you'd get :-

1st race - 10m emails
2nd race - 1m emails
3rd race - 100,000 emails
4th race - 10,000 emails
5th race - 1,000 emails

Anyone who's a racing addict who isn't a ntural cynic and doesn't understand the scheme is likely to be interested after 5 races have been tipped correctly ...

Stock tippers do much the same thing but in a blanket bombing technique - they publicly tip 100 companies on the stock exchange but will then only mention their 'winners' in subsequent columns/programs.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Not against the concept of a bank bailout, but against how it was done. Probably would liked to have seen waaay more strings attached to giving away taxpayer money (first thing, of course, would be fire those responsible and amend their severance packages in exchange for the moolah).

Though I'm sure plenty of people realized that the total collapse of the banking system is a far worse outcome than a very deep recession where people who made bad mortgage deals pay the consequences.

Because only the people that made these bad decisions will pay the consequences? Foreclosures don't lower surrounding property values? People that were responsible won't suffer at all under a deep recession? That's a very interesting worldview. Tell me more.

[path12]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

So you don't think capitalism has winners and losers?

This is a very interesting world view. Tell me more.

Personally, I cheered out loud after I heard Santelli's rant.

I thought it hypocritical at best for Santelli and the traders at the CBOT to position themselves as the moral authority for these "losers".

If you're going to portion out blame, do those who took on more than they could afford deserve a portion? Absolutely. But in my opinion, those who represented themselves as financial experts and aggressively sold and approved these obviously bad loans -- with very little to no consequence due to the fact that they are "too big to fail" -- deserve the lions share.

To pillory the segment that is 10% of the problem by those who are part of the 90% is, well, disingenuous.

[molson]

Many of the people who screwed up their mortgages are absolutely complete losers, and its their fault that good people lost their houses later on.

The sellers who went out of business are complete failures and losers also. But not because their sales were "unfair", because they destroyed themselves. Our economy wouldn't work if corporations couldn't (legally, without fraud) screw over consumers to a degree.

Neither group of losers should ever be allowed to participate in the credit market again. (Not to say there's not a sensible solution that envolves ensuring there's banks in the world)

[path12]

Originally Posted by jeff061

I would say it's more of a indictment on capitalism and democracy and how they are doomed to failure because humans as a whole suck. They just provide what the consumers want, that's how it's supposed to work.

But hey, that's just me.

I would agree with you on the capitalism part, I believe that is about as flawed as communism. And maybe the humans suck angle.

I don't blame democracy.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

They are losers that made poor decisions (and yes, they should have known better than subprime mortgages and ARM loans). Is there any evidence other than your preconcieved bias that he's calling them morons?

In this view where do inflated property values, questionable appraisals, over hyped loans, poor disclosure, and encouragement from Greenspan on down to take out these exotic mortgages come in?

I won't argue that there are irresponsible borrowers, but blaming everything on the sub-prime loan holder is just another form of ideological blindness.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

They are losers? What about the financial professionals who made the best on subprimes and alt-A's that blew up the system?

Plenty of folks refused subprime mortages because they realized that fixed rates are the best things in the long term. Plenty of folk wanted to lock in low fixed rates when they were low. Plenty of folk were smart with their money.

Maybe those that didn't think about whether rates may actually go up can learn this painful lesson for the future (rather than learning the lesson that the government will bail them out - ie, its a nice moral hazard we've created).

[cartman]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Plenty of folks refused subprime mortages because they realized that fixed rates are the best things in the long term. Plenty of folk wanted to lock in low fixed rates when they were low. Plenty of folk were smart with their money.

Maybe those that didn't think about whether rates may actually go up can learn this painful lesson for the future (rather than learning the lesson that the government will bail them out - ie, its a nice moral hazard we've created).

There were plenty of subprime mortgages that weren't ARMs, zero-down, or other exotic loans, and were 30 year fixed rate.

[PilotMan]

This has to be the easiest gig for a comedian. I mean, hindsight is perfect, there are endless soundbytes and predictions on air. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.

[Raiders Army]

I think that anyone who thinks that The Daily Show writers don't target what is FUNNY is kidding themselves.

[Cringer]

There are plenty of losers getting foreclosed on. One of our new listings for example. The wife goes over to offer them Cash for Keys and this guy is in the driveway washing his brand new truck with two other fairly new cars sitting there and proceeds to act surprised they have been foreclosed on while admitting they ignored the mortgage companies attempts to work with them.

At least they have their cars, for now.