Jon Stewart vs Jim Cramer

[tarnok]

Jon Stewart vs Jim Cramer

Have you seen this? Stewart rips this guy a new one. I honestly felt bad for the man. And I felt that Stewart gave the impression of a debate with none of the substance.

Honestly, how can you show clips of the man talking, call him out on individual statements that he has made and then claim it's not about him?

I dunno. I don't have any particular love for Cramer, but I feel like I just watched the man get beat up on for twenty minutes without even having a chance to properly defend himself.

 

[Johnny]

Re: Jon Stewart vs Jim Cramer

Cramer got his *** handed to him on a lot of bull****. Justified.

 

[lAmebAdger]

Re: Jon Stewart vs Jim Cramer

jeez, that guy should've stayed away from the show... i know i would if i had so many faults people could exploit

it's a comedy show, so stewart had the right environment for going over the top a bit on the relentlessness, another reason why cramer should've stayed away

 

[jmervyn]

Re: Jon Stewart vs Jim Cramer

Despite Stewart's frequent role as hatchet-man for the left, I usually enjoy his show. However, I found this one of the most un-entertaining things I'd ever seen him do. But there's little doubt that some found it wunnerfull.

 

[SaroDarksbane]

Re: Jon Stewart vs Jim Cramer

Despite Stewart's frequent role as hatchet-man for the left

Eh, I separate the views from partisanship.

While I'm sure he and I disagree on innumerable topics, I think Stewart is pretty genuine guy.

Trying to call him a political hack just because he shares opinions with a bunch of political hacks is painting with too broad a brush, in my opinion.

And in regards to the link you posted, not everyone who disagrees with your viewpoint is a threat to the nation or in league with the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy (tm). Sure rabid Obama supporters are very "your'e either with us, or against us", but it's not like that's something new given the last eight years.

Every election is now a competition between the fascists-lite and the communists-lite. The only thing that changes with each race is the group that gets put up against the wall. Until people realize this and vote accordingly, nothing will ever change.

 

[Croup]

Re: Jon Stewart vs Jim Cramer

I enjoy when Saro posts. It's nice to hear logical analysis instead of knee-jerk response.

Personally, I thought Cramer handled himself pretty well on the show. Stewart went after him from the beginning and there were some interesting back-and-forth conversations. But the second half of the interview (roughly) was Cramer admitting some fault and he and Stewart having a conversation about what could be done better. Stewart may have nailed Cramer on some points, but Cramer came across pretty well (in my book) because he was decent enough to concede some points and admit fault while (at least on the surface) being interested in what could be done better.

 

[jmervyn]

Re: Jon Stewart vs Jim Cramer

Eh, I separate the views from partisanship.

How? :crazyeyes:

While I'm sure he and I disagree on innumerable topics, I think Stewart is pretty genuine guy.

Trying to call him a political hack just because he shares opinions with a bunch of political hacks is painting with too broad a brush, in my opinion.

"Death to Smoochy" doesn't ring of authenticity for me, soorry. He's an entertainer, nothing more. And like most of the Left coast types, his politics are shallow - though he's no Sean Penn, admittedly.

Sure rabid Obama supporters are very "your'e either with us, or against us", but it's not like that's something new given the last eight years.

No argument there, either - I think the point of the article was that Cramer has suddenly found himself no longer of the elite, hence his submissiveness before Stewart.

Every election is now a competition between the fascists-lite and the communists-lite. The only thing that changes with each race is the group that gets put up against the wall. Until people realize this and vote accordingly, nothing will ever change.

I tend to think of them more as socialists-lite versus communists-like. And just watching the two groups attempt to purge each other would be popcorn-worthy if we weren't hemorrhaging cash in the process.

 

[SaroDarksbane]

Re: Jon Stewart vs Jim Cramer

How? :crazyeyes:

I prefer "I disagree with you on issue XYZ." over "I disagree with you because you're a Republican red-neck/Pinko-Commie."

Maybe that's just me.

He's an entertainer, nothing more.

I will agree that he is an entertainer. But why nothing more?

And like most of the Left coast types, his politics are shallow

Define shallow and deep politics for me, and give an example of each.

And just watching the two groups attempt to purge each other would be popcorn-worthy if we weren't hemorrhaging cash in the process.

Who did you vote for?

 

[Tanooki]

Re: Jon Stewart vs Jim Cramer

I voted for Baldwin. (That was the guy Ron Paul endorsed.)

*edit* My wife and I were the one two people in our district to vote for him.

 

[jmervyn]

Re: Jon Stewart vs Jim Cramer

I prefer "I disagree with you on issue XYZ." over "I disagree with you because you're a Republican red-neck/Pinko-Commie."

Maybe that's just me.

The two are not mutually exclusive, you know. That's kind of why the two monstrosities known as political parties came into being.

I will agree that he is an entertainer. But why nothing more?

He's no need of doing anything intellectually more difficult than potty jokes, nor would he likely bother even if he <had> the opportunity because of the constraints of his format. I mean, America - The Book was nowhere near as deep as Glenn Beck's An Inconvenient Book, yet both were written simply for teh lulz.

Stewart mugs for the camera, and has previously admitted that's the depth of his show. I don't know if Colbert has said as much about his own show, but when your meal ticket is a mockumentary of a specific cable show (O'Reilly) then you're both narrow <and> shallow in scope.

Define shallow and deep politics for me, and give an example of each.

Obama is shallow by definition - light on detail, heavy on populist rhetoric. Kerry was deep, albeit stupid - but trying to explain nuanced issues when one is a Frankenstein-like senator is all but guaranteed to translate badly to modern media.

Who did you vote for?

Barr, as if it was any of your damned business.

 

[Tanooki]

Re: Jon Stewart vs Jim Cramer

I bet they were expecting the conservatives to have voted McCain. As if the Republican party is the only option.

 

[tarnok]

Re: Jon Stewart vs Jim Cramer

Personally, I thought Cramer handled himself pretty well on the show. Stewart went after him from the beginning and there were some interesting back-and-forth conversations. But the second half of the interview (roughly) was Cramer admitting some fault and he and Stewart having a conversation about what could be done better.

See, I didn't see that. I saw Stewart cherry-picking lines from a video that's over a decade old (which may have been entirely in context, but we have no way of knowing), hammering Cramer on his personal actions, retreating to the "it's not about you" when Cramer tried to address that, and not letting Cramer finish more than a sentence or two at a time.

Generally, Stewart was guilty of the sort of hopping back and forth from point to point that, in my mind at least, marks the poorest debaters. Rather than defend or explain a point, whenever he met resistance on one point the conversation was suddenly about something else.

I could not help but think that if he (Stewart) really wanted to make some kind of changes it would have been better to talk to Cramer than abuse him.

I dunno. I've always liked the daily show, but I think Stewart's losing it a bit.

 

[BobCox2]

Re: Jon Stewart vs Jim Cramer

It's not like Cramer took it all to heart or anything.
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/03/13/cramer/index.html

During his "Daily Show" appearance, Cramer was constantly deferential and apologetic, at times even catching himself when he tried to offer an excuse for past behavior. And ultimately, he promised to change his ways, which include, a history of alleged attempts to manipulate the market using his position as a financial analyst both in print and on television and his connections within the media.
At first, during the beginning of his own show on Friday, he appeared to have truly meant what he said the night before.
"Before we get started, I want to say something about, about what happened yesterday. A lot of people are talking about what happened: I want to be very clear, I want to be very clear that, although I was clearly outside of my safety zone, I have my utmost respect for this person and the work that they do no matter," Cramer said, appearing to choke up a bit before continuing, "no matter how uncomfortable it was to be on. So I want you to take a look at this clip from yesterday of Cramer vs. Stewart."
But the video that Cramer then showed his audience wasn't from the public beating he took on "The Daily Show" -- it was from the appearance he'd made on Martha Stewart's show earlier in the day on Thursday, when the two had made banana cream pies together. (The chyron that appeared as Cramer introduced the video, "Going on Stewart's show was a complete cake walk," was probably the tip-off.)
With that, and a winking question asking whether anyone minds if he still uses the buttons that provide his show's trademark sound effects, the show was off and running, back to normal.
There were a couple other references to what had happened sprinkled throughout the show, though. Before one commercial break, he stopped and said, "Oh, and memo to one of the Stewarts out there: I'm so sorry about having some fun and entertaining. Next time I promise to be more like Kenneth Clark." Later, warning viewers to hold off a little while before buying a stock he recommended, he said, "If people get too excited... I'll probably be in the cross-hairs of some cable TV show."
Cramer did, at one point, acknowledge that he came out the loser of his battle with Stewart. When a caller said he was reading one of Cramer's books, the host replied, "I beat myself up in that one, I gotta tell you something. Not as well as some others have been doing lately, but still pretty darn good."
The man himself wasn't the only one trying to minimize the "Daily Show" interview on Friday. TVNewser reports that producers at Cramer's sister network MSNBC were asked not to cover it during their own shows.

 

[tarnok]

Re: Jon Stewart vs Jim Cramer

I don't have much of a problem with that (other than the network being instructed not to cover it) because Stewart didn't convince me that Cramer needed to change. I'm not convinced that Cramer did anything wrong other than express some extremely shady ideas about business and make some bad suggestions about buying stocks.

Let's be honest; the man runs a show with a sound effects board. Stewart has used the entertainment defense before, why's it no longer valid?

 

[SaroDarksbane]

Re: Jon Stewart vs Jim Cramer

The two are not mutually exclusive, you know.

My point being that I'd much rather have Stewart around me than, say, Al Franken.

He's no need of doing anything intellectually more difficult than potty jokes, nor would he likely bother even if he <had> the opportunity because of the constraints of his format.

I think the brilliance of Stewart is that he says a lot by saying very little.

Obama is shallow by definition - light on detail, heavy on populist rhetoric.

When you put it like that, I guess I see Stewart as the opposite of Obama, in a way. If Obama is shallow masquerading as deep, then Stewart is deep masquerading as shallow.

Barr, as if it was any of your damned business.

Odd, I didn't take you for a timid one. But yes, I thought it was Barr.

Let's be honest; the man runs a show with a sound effects board. Stewart has used the entertainment defense before, why's it no longer valid?

I think the difference is that one of the "entertainers" is recommending stock picks in way that is (allegedly) biased and manipulative.

 

[tarnok]

Re: Jon Stewart vs Jim Cramer

I think the difference is that one of the "entertainers" is recommending stock picks in way that is (allegedly) biased and manipulative.

Yes, allegedly being key here. Nothing I saw looked like evidence that Cramer has made any attempt to manipulate stocks on his show. Perhaps there is evidence of this somewhere, but in my opinion Stewart completely failed to make such a case.

 

[SaroDarksbane]

Re: Jon Stewart vs Jim Cramer

Yes, allegedly being key here. Nothing I saw looked like evidence that Cramer has made any attempt to manipulate stocks on his show. Perhaps there is evidence of this somewhere, but in my opinion Stewart completely failed to make such a case.

No idea since I don't watch the guy. For all I know, he just gives out bad advice (and maybe this was a fluke; again, I don't know).

The easiest way to figure it out would be to see how much money he lost on Stearns, I'd wager. If he was that upbeat about how great a deal it was, he surely would have purchased some, yes?

 

[tarnok]

Re: Jon Stewart vs Jim Cramer

The easiest way to figure it out would be to see how much money he lost on Stearns, I'd wager. If he was that upbeat about how great a deal it was, he surely would have purchased some, yes?

Maybe, but maybe not. I don't watch his show either, but I'd wager he's called on to give a thumbs-up or thumbs-down to a lot of stocks. He can easily say that something is worth buying, be entirely honest in his belief that it is so and still not buy it. Possibly because he forgot giving that recommendation, or his money is already tied up in other investments, or just because while he thinks that stock is a good buy he thinks he knows a better one.

All I'm saying is that little or no loss on Bears-Stearn wouldn't imply dishonest dealing. Now if his entire stock portfolio is at odds with his advice, that would be pretty suspicious.

 

[Johnny]

Re: Jon Stewart vs Jim Cramer

The clips stewart brought up was 3 years old by the way.

The problem was that Cramer has been painting this image of himself as someone unbiased and trustworthy. Starting his show with "in Cramer we trust" Coming out against a lot of cheap tricks in the stock market, but then the clips shown is him 3 years ago confessing that he has been using his position in the media and these tricks to manipulate stock prices in his favour. While at the same time posing as a trustworthy figure for honest financial advice. Even going so far as to have "In Cramer we trust" as a catchphrase on his show.

 

[tarnok]

Re: Jon Stewart vs Jim Cramer

The clips stewart brought up was 3 years old by the way.

The problem was that Cramer has been painting this image of himself as someone unbiased and trustworthy. Starting his show with "in Cramer we trust" Coming out against a lot of cheap tricks in the stock market, but then the clips shown is him 3 years ago confessing that he has been using his position in the media and these tricks to manipulate stock prices in his favour. While at the same time posing as a trustworthy figure for honest financial advice. Even going so far as to have "In Cramer we trust" as a catchphrase on his show.

My fault, for some reason I thought the video was from the early nineties. Even so, I'd like to see the whole video or at least hear Cramer explain it in context.