Discomfort Zone

At the end of his "face-off" with Jim Cramer tonight, Jon Stewart said something about hoping that the audience felt as much discomfort watching it as he did conducting it. This audience of one certainly did, and it also sensed some restiveness and embarrassment in the studio-audience reactions to the nine or ten consecutive unanswered blows to Cramer's midsection, especially by those mortifying 2006 blurry video clips in which Cramer seems to endorse three or four types of investment gaming and near-scamming. Why is it that this sort of public moral comeuppance gives some of us much more discomfort than it does righteous vindication, anger, indignation? Because it's literally out of place.
First of all, Jon Stewart abandons his comic genius to put on metaphorical judicial robes and a peruke. They don't fit very well, as they didn't when he attacked Tucker Carlson. But the discomfort also arises, I think, from the conscious or unconscious understanding among many members of the audience that IT'S ALL SHOW BUSINESS. "The Daily Show" is no less a part of show business than "Fast Money" and the rest of CNBC's yammering-heads parade are. At the beginning of the show--show!--Stewart even alluded, in however a self-parodic way, to the positive ratings consequences of having Cramer on the program.
So Stewart's censorious mien, however justified by the "shenanigans" that Cramer may have participated in on his program and that take place in the real world of finance, struck me and I bet many others as a kind of category violation and even turned into a kind of boomerang. Cramer's show is (actually not-bad) entertainment. Come on--you knew that, and so did I. If you take that kind of crap seriously, who's fault is that, when you come right down to it? In whose hand rests the remote? Stewart's show is absolutely brilliant comedy, night after night--an amazing accomplishment--and he delivers severe and telling blows to the pompous and the preposterous and pernicious through his comedy. This show is close to a public service in its antidotal effects. When he gets serious with other guests, it's usually momentarily and a natural part of a basically comic interview. This time, though, it was almost all very serious, but since it was ultimately still in the service of show business (remember: ratings!), the ring of righteousnss was just a litle hollow--just as it was, at least for me, when Oprah dressed James Frey down a while back.

Comments

[oregonbird]

Yep. Let's put a Wall Street insider with access to AIG and Bear Stearns CEOs on a financiall­y-oriented network during the hours most serious working people are watching news, bill the show as financial information, and advertise network, show, research and insider as the purveyor of sound financial advice. When the markets network, show and shill have consistantly pushed as legit crash -- they are suddenly entertainment. Then hold a comedian whose 75 year old mother lost her 401K to the companies this network knowingly shilled for -- well, his, mine and most every elderly person I know -- hold that comedian to fulfilling his duties -- to keep you laughing. What, Cramer doesn't do it for you anymore?

Jon Stewart is your worse nightmare. Someone who gets it right.

[MicrowavableJohnnyCakes]

The problem with the chestnut that shows like "Mad Money" are entertainent is that they aren't needed to be entertainment. We have guys like Jon Stewart for that. People need Jim Cramer for financial advice. You might not take him seriously, Daniel, but your perspective is of an observer and of the media, not a middle-class guy looking for help in building his nest egg. He turns on a channel that calls itself a business news station with a show helmed by a former hedge fund manager and expects to get solid advice. Cramer can have his bells and whistles, but he still needs to perform his core job. And if someone like him can't do it on a business channel, who is supposed too? Likewise, the problem with "Crossfire" was that it was a debate show that had ceased being a debate show and became dueling talking points yelled at the same time. Sure, maybe that would be more "entertaining" but it wasn't what it was supposed to do. If intelligent and informed people like a Cramer or Carlson decide leave out cake to add more icing, then who is the public supposed to turn to for actual advice and information?

[HeevenSteven]

Daniel, it seems you missed Stewart's whole point.

[AntiSocialite]

I think you are way off base here Daniel, the reason that we all get uncomfortable watching something like the Cramer-Stewart interview is because the basic humanity in most of us doesn't like to see someone blindsided and beaten mercilessly, even if it is only metaphorically. I know that personally I was uncomfortable coming to the realization that a comedian is this country's most trustworthy news source. It doesn't take a genius to see that Jon Stewart does more to prepare for his interviews than anyone else on television, with the exception of maybe Rachael Maddow. And that is the real reason we are so restive Mr. Menaker, not because we know it's all show business, it's because we are uncomfortable with a country whose press is so eager to trade their credentials for "access," that a comedian has become the most respected voice on television.

Peace

[wreckedkarma]

This situation illustrates the dangerously blurred lines that exist today between entertainment and information. Both men make valid points on their respective "shows", but this often requires ignoring half of the intelligence available, and many parts of the issue's "back story" in order to get to the punchline, or desired economic maneuvering. Neither is 100% forthcoming, because that would after all, hurt ratings. While I don't think there's any doubt that Stewart is a stalwart Obama apologist, what's most curious is Cramer (who claims to be a life-long Democrat voter), taking extreme exception with Obama's agenda, as have most economists, and apparently, investors who continue to sit on the sidelines of the markets.