The Great Eviscerator

It was one of the best television interviews I have ever seen. It was journalism at its finest, with a capital "J." A great deal of work went into preparing for the interview; the interviewer had a smart strategy and a clear point of view. The outcome was informative and enlightening. And, true to fast-paced world we live, the interview has gone viral. Edward R. Murrow would have been proud were he alive today.

And who was this impressive interviewer, this outstanding practitioner of journalism, this most revered member of the "fourth estate?" None other than Comedy Central's Jon Stewart. Call him "The Great Eviscerator!" His victims: the Goliath of business news, CNBC, and its mercurial host and commentator, Jim Cramer.

Jon Stewart raked CNBC over the coals, accusing them of under-reporting the events that led up to our current financial crisis. Worse, he accused them of knowingly misleading viewers about what was really going on, in effect, CNBC was a co-conspirator. Then Stewart played a three year old tape of Cramer advising hedge fund investors to manipulate the market for personal benefit.

At one point, Stewart charged, "This thing was 10 years in the making . .(the economic collapse) . . The idea that you could have on the guys from Bear Stearns and Merrill Lynch and guys that had leveraged 35-1 and then blame mortgage holders, that's insane!"

Cramer responded, "I always wish that people would come in and swear themselves in before they come on the show...I had a lot of CEOs lie to me on the show...It's very painful...I don't have subpoena power."

In other words, Cramer was the victim!

But Stewart wasn't buying it, "You knew what the banks were doing and were touting it for months and months...The entire network was."

Cramer tried to name names, "But Dick Fuld, who ran Lehman Brothers, called me in - he called me in when the stock was at 40 -- because I was saying: 'look, I thought the stock was wrong, thought it was in the wrong place' - he brings me in and lies to me, lies to me, lies to me."

Mocking a shocked expression, Stewart said, "The CEO of a company lied to you?"

Cramer tried to be funny, "Shocking."

Then Stewart pulled out the knife and stuck it in his victim, "But isn't that financial reporting? What do you think is the role of CNBC?"

Cramer tried the "my-problem-is-I-am-too-nice" defense, "I didn't think that Bear Stearns would evaporate overnight...I knew the people who ran it...I thought they were honest...That was my mistake...I really did...I thought they were honest...Did I get taken in because I knew them before? Maybe, to some degree." Cramer continued, "It's difficult to have a reporter say: 'I just came from an interview with Hank Paulson and he lied his darn-fool head off.'..It's difficult...I think it challenges the boundaries."

Then Stewart dropped the hammer on Cramer, "But what is the responsibility of the people who cover Wall Street? . . . . I'm under the assumption, and maybe this is purely ridiculous, but I'm under the assumption that you don't just take their word at face value. That you actually then go around and try to figure it out (applause)."

In fairness, CNBC has some outstanding reporters, David Faber, Joe Kernen, Erin Brunett, Carl Quintanilla, Becky Quick and Maria Bartiromo, to name a few. Much of its live coverage is extremely good, as are its documentaries and specials. CNBC serves its high-income and highly educated audience well, and it is a huge cash cow for NBC and GE.

CNBC has no real competition, except for itself. When one of CNBC's reporters shouts from the floor that the government should not be bailing out the mortgages of "losers," or a couple of its reporters get into a highly personal and inappropriate on-air spat, or anchors resort to excessive yelling and constantly interrupt guests, the whole franchise is diminished. At its worst, CNBC is like those televised world wrestling matches.

But at its best, CNBC is a trustworthy and vital source for important financial and business information from around the world. Now more than ever, America needs CNBC to be the best it can be!

Comments

[customgreen]

Financial shows like CNBC in my mind are not really needed. In the "old days" a person had a stockbroker, or they investigated a company they wanted to invest in. They had to do leg work. In todays world they just need to flip on television or go on the internet and belive what they see. It is a dumbing down, the so called easy button. Lazyness prevails.

[normathumb]

Unindicted co-conspirators. If some of those guys dont go to jail, they should, at the very least, be given their walking papers and slink into ignominy

[lentinelia]

The end of this article is weird.

You say that, "...at its best, CNBC is a trustworthy and vital source for important financial and business information from around the world."

Oh really?

And how are we supposed to know what they are being "at its best"? How are we supposed to know when they are being "trustworthy", as opposed to the rest of the time when they are busy kissing up to the rich and powerful and lining their pockets?

[charlygardel]

Well, poor innocent lentinelia, you should know by watching the commercials. When the commercial for a program like Jim Cramer's -- just to use one completely and totally random example -- has the slogan "In Cramer We Trust," then you know that Cramer has god-like omniscience and would never lead you astray. You can *trust* him because he has vast knowledge, knows all the inside players since he himself was/is one, is completely and totally ethical, and because ... well because the extremely well-produced commercial has the word "trust" right there! Right there next to his name! In big letters!

That's how we know what parts are trustworthy -- they *tell* us they are. Surely we can trust them when they tell us they are trustworthy, no? Please don't tell me you are one of those "I want to see fact-checking, investigative journalism with no cronyism or gross ethical breaches" kind of prude, are you? I mean, its only the world's largest economy that they are reporting on, after all. Its not like its something important, where we *really need to know* with the most accurate information possible -- say, something like who exactly Britney Spears is seeing nowadays, or what diet she used to shed all those post-partum pounds.

[flowie]

Cramer is a fraud. Santelli is a fraud.
Did you see for the last two weeks they blamed President Obama for the decline in the Stock Market?
How come they have not given him credit for the last four daysof 9% increase?.
They are all manipulaters of the market.

[WonderWomanGoddess]

Nice blog, I love the title. So...Can Jon Stewart please, please win a Pulitzer now? I don't care what he says, he deserves it more than anyone in 'mainstream media'! Especially since he can't win an Emmy for the interview itself, PLEASE give him the Pulitzer!

[califone]

1st off... Cramer isn't a reporter. He's a commentator. His stock picks have been debunked for years. But Erin Brunett, Carl Quintanilla, Becky Quick and Maria Bartiromo are DEFINITELY NOT reporters either. I'm not disparaging their intelligence, but these people are not reporters. They are commentators, and will do and say anything to get access.

[OtayPanky]

Exactly so.

[writeaway]

I believe I read on Kos that Bartiromo was associated with some of the stock manipulations by trying to influence viewers and investors. A firm that my 401k was managed by, a subsidiary of Lehman Brothers, reportedly owned over 500 pieces of collector quality art. Perhaps there was a lot of 'front-running'. A double whammy, hang the art on your office walls and get a substantial tax deduction for business expense.

[TreadingWater]

These people aren't reporters, they are cheerleaders. They seem to do more manipulation than reporting. How many people were able to get their money out of these bad investments while fools took the advice of people like Cramer?

[HyperInfluential]

Um...if those reporters were so good, why didn't they tell Cramer the CEOs were lying to him? If Cramer found out later CEOs were lying to him and his "good reporter" staff who's responsible for his research didn't catch the lie, why didn't he ask for new researchers? It just doesn't hang together. The only explanation is that they were either patsies or in on the market manipulation.

Manipulating the market doesn't always mean spreading lies, it also means covering up the truth and running fluff stories when you know for a fact that major banks have invested 35 times their available cash into new derivatives that nobody really understands, but which are based entirely on subprime mortgages. That's a story you have a duty to report, and not reporting it has cost so many so much. Many people have lost their entire retirement savings and all their dreams are dead. That's not being a "good reporter."

[IndianaJohn]

I'm not sure just how much investigating financial reporters can do, other than examine SEC reports filed by public companies or reports of the ratings agencies. They cannot get bank reports or inside documentation. Maybe they have some tricks that don't occur to me. I didn't study journalism.

Of course, SEC officials who were warned of malfeasance and agents of rating agencies who failed to do due diligence before giving AAA ratings should be in jail with those they failed to police.

[writerjohnny]

Seriously? Reporters brought down Nixon and Agnew. A reporter/journalist researches, asks questions of people at companies BESIDES the CEO and build relationships with regulatory agencies and cops. Any "financial" reporter could have picked up a phone and called the Madoff whistleblower years ago and saved hundreds of millions of dollars.

[ESerafina42]

I particularly liked the "They LIED to me" defense. Aren't journalists (of whatever sort) SUPPOSED to be skeptical, no matter how much they may personally like the person they're interviewing, especially if the person is saying things that are to his advantage that people believe, like "My company is doing great" when it's heading into the toilet?

[Tanyars5]

I watched this interview in amazement. I normally don't watch Jon Stewart because he is just not my cup of tea. However, he should consider dropping the comedy routine and start doing hard journalism.
His interview was one of the best I have ever seen. He spoke for many who wanted to say the same thing. All of these talking heads on TV and no one asked the right questions.
I too have wondered how these so called financial experts couldnt see the meltdown coming. If this is true they should not be on tv saying they are experts. Cramer of all people knows more than most because he was one of them. I like Cramer.
Bravo Jon Stewart.

[klondiker]

It was truly one of the most remarkable interviews I have ever seen. You could tell from the audience reactions that they too were kind of blindsided, just as Jim Cramer was. A sort of hush fell over the audience when Stewart said, "This is not a f**king game."

Cramer looked complety chastised - I thought he was going to cry or something!

I really think that this will go down as one of the most remarkable interviews of our time.