Jon, You're Wrong. It is a Game, and You're a Player!

Booyah Jon, Welcome to Cramerica!

I've come to the realization that if you were to describe The Daily Show and Mad Money to a blind person they likely wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Both try to be entertaining, they both use 'goofy' sounds, they both try to be 'current' and they are both successful--sometimes. The Stewart vs. Cramer edition of The Daily Show was one of the other times.

Where they go wrong is when they both actually believe their own publicity. Verbal helium is a dangerous thing. Stewart is a comic turned the 'white knight' of journalism, holding the feet of hemming and hawing politicos to The Daily Show fire. Pointing out their foibles, keeping an eye on the world for the rest us. A voice of eternal reason, the Diogenes of his generation.

Cramer on the other hand is a stock picking "guru." In his veins beats the pulse of the Street. He's been there, done that, become a rich man by using his wits to stay ahead of the curve, and he, just like Stewart, is there to make sure that we, the unwashed, don't get taken,

Too late. We've been taken by the both of them, and of course it's our own fault.

I've said it more than once -- if you invest your money based solely on what Jim Cramer tells you on television you deserve to lose it. Funny thing is, I think Jim has always agreed with that. He did not make his millions by watching or appearing on TV. He made it by working way too hard and long in the pits of the financial world -- learning, studying, losing and winning. It cost him a lot (his hair and at times his health). What he is now is an entertainer, someone who can make an otherwise marginally interesting subject at least watchable. As luck would have it he's also become popular, or as popular as someone on CNBC can be. And there in lies the problem. "Popular" is not something ordinarily associated with a business channel, and once CNBC, which had wandered in the desert of marginal cable stations for way too long, got a long drink of popularity thanks to Cramer, well, before you know it Jim is being rolled out as a '"expert" on Today, Nightly and anything else NBC owns. And, he gets a shot at the "big time" too -- Martha Stewart. Now that's crossover appeal. Not to mention that when he takes on the Obama stimulus package the White House notices!! My goodness. Cramer is a guru!!

Stewart followed a similar path. A pretty good comedian with a droll style on a marginal cable show on a network that few folks had ever heard of. And then, through luck and hard work, and a real interest in current events he morphed it and himself into a "pundit", or the "anti-pundit." He was going to be the one true "seer" -- poke fun at the soft underbelly of politics, keeping us smiling and "in the know" -- the "shysters" wouldn't stand a chance with Jon Stewart on guard!

And how did these two fairy tales end up? Like something out of the Brothers Grimm. Cramer took a verbal pounding, said his "mea culpa," and spent most of the show looking like someone who had just been caught shop lifting a candy bar. Sorry, it won't happen again.

Stewart rode in on his charger, about the size of an Icelandic horse, poked and prodded and yelled at Cramer and then made sure to tell Jim that the economic crisis that we're in is not a "....@$#%^%$$##@...game!!!!!!"

He's right, the economic issues we all face are not a game, but his show is. And they both played it. Cramer and CNBC have never had this much publicity. And while they both come out of it with a slight odor, little is likely to change. There's nothing like the stink of notoriety. And the same goes for Stewart -- how many more folks watched his show because he had Cramer on? How much more polished is his white knight "armour" now that he's "slain" the evil Booyah? You think that was part of the plan?

The unfortunate piece of this is that Jim Cramer isn't all of CNBC. Whatever aroma is attached to him will seep now onto the other hard working folks at the network who get up early and stay late to report on the actual financial happenings of the day. The fact that they don't have the resources available to them to uncover the shenanigans that Stewart keeps harping about is not their fault. It's a problem faced by all of journalism and something to be discussed at length at some other time.

And Jon Stewart is not a journalist. He's a civically engaged entertainer, who apparently as frustrated as the rest of us with the economy went looking for someone to hammer. My suggestion Jon is next time find a bigger nail.

Comments

[deminohio]

My goodness. I am sick of people missing the very simple and clearly stated point. They both sell snake oil but only one of them says it. The other one uses the tagline "In Cramer We Trust". I'm not sure I have ever seen a more clear argument and a more clearly stated position and yet Cramer goes on some show this morning(of course it is a Thursday making the Stewart response less impactful if any comes at all-what a wuss) and calls Stewart naive for blaming the media for the financial collapse. As if that is what the point of that humiliating experience was for him. That was his takeaway, shameful. You need to remember this whole thing began because of Santelli's rant about homeowners being losers.

[wolfmason]

Yeah, something tells me that the author is not familiar with either show...The only thing Cramer and Stewart's program have in common, is that they both seek to make entertainment out of dry subject matter, which can be of, oh i dunno, how about every TV show ever aired.

[freedomisabsolute]

Here is where people are not paying attention. Mike, he did not pick this nail as a representation, the nail stood up and asked to be singled out. So he banged it. Also Jon never says he is anything more than he his. It's people like you that have dubbed him the white knight. So if you're going to write about something do it in its correct context. But then again you think you're right about something as the implications of your title suggest. But I beg to differ.

[ljdahl]

"The unfortunate piece of this is that Jim Cramer isn't all of CNBC. Whatever aroma is attached to him will seep now onto the other hard working folks at the network who get up early and stay late to report on the actual financial happenings of the day. The fact that they don't have the resources available to them to uncover the shenanigans that Stewart keeps harping about is not their fault. It's a problem faced by all of journalism and something to be discussed at length at some other time."

That paragraph is stunning to me! Really, it's not CNBC's fault? What are they there for? Why do they exist if not to report and investigate and bring actual business news to the public? Isn't that their job?

[PeacefulRevolutionary]

sooooo yeah Jon Stewart has more resources than CNBC???? Its not their fault that they can uncover what Jon Stewart can uncover? Cramer even says in the interview that CEOs lie to him and people from CNBC come back and say "I just got back from an interview and this CEO lied to me." If CNBC reporters know they are being lied to, why don't they call out the CEOs on their lie? Why don't they say, no that's not true and heres why... Big problem with the media, they let them lie to their faces

[eden4barack08]

And it's the same exact thing they do with politicians, mainly the Republican ones. They KNOW they're lying, but they just let them.

[MsYellowDog]

The reason Stewart has plunged into this opening is that MSM "journalists" have spent the last 20+ years sucking up to their corporate masters,and the powers-that-be in Washington. They have forgotten the first lesson of Journalism 101, REPORT OBJECTIVELY.

[itsafreakingame]

Mike why don't you go on Jon's show and explain it to him?

[CharleyCat]

I watch CNBC nearly every morning. Only a few weeks ago I griped to my wife that the hosts of the morning show do not provide any context or disclosure about the parade of "guest hosts," "experts" and "commentators" who are run through show every day.

Other than giving their current/former titles as qualifications for their having an important point of view, absolutely no effort is ever made to reveal what underlying biases or ulterior motives might be behind the positions they stake out for themselves. I have never seen the hosts offer any serious rebuttal to these speakers. Certainly nobody at the desk seems to have run the numbers being discussed to check on the truth of what is being said. This, to me, is not "hard-working journalism." It is merely a forum for the privileged.

If CNBC suffers from a lack of journalistic "resources," perhaps they should reduce the number of corporate players and Wal Street insiders they bring to the mic, and actually get a little background on the ones they do interview. The "octo-box," something Stewart has mocked in the past, is an excellent way at providing a lot of noise and minimal substance.

Let's not blame Stewart for saying aloud what should be obvious to anyone with pretensions to journalism cred. How about looking in the mirror first, Hegedus?

[indywoman]

There is a VERY big difference between not seeing the oncoming financial sunami, and claiming everything is fine!!!!!

I think Jon's point is that CNBC and Cramer didn't just not know what they were purporting to be knowledgable about, but that they actually told people over and over again that everything was fine!!!

Say a building is on fire and there is a guy in there who finds an exit, but only saves himself. When he gets outside, he tells people there is no fire. He is not responsible for saving others, but if he lies to everyone and says there is no fire, he is far more culpable.

[William Coleman]

Is the remuneration better as a Staff or Consulting Apologist for a hack network?

[bo245f]

All Jon Stewart was saying to the finance news channel pundits is before you start talking and blaming everyone but wall street, do your own investigations and report the TRUTH. STOP telling the public what your cooperate CEO's want you to sell. We want and deserve the truth and if you can't do that then get off the air.

[shamaniceconomist]

Cramer and Stewart have played this "dispute" masterfully, but the reason they can do so is that they are both so skilled at what they do. HuffPo hasn't done badly in getting in on it either.

[MBinNYC]

The problem with CNBC and the rest of the MSM is that they report what they are told as "fact" with out doing any checking or verification.

That was/is really the main point of Stewart's issue. That CNBC had CEO talking up their companies and the "reporters" never questioned them on anything.

This is the same issue really that many have had with the white house press corp that took whatever the press secretary said and reported it with out a single fact check.

These folks in the MSM or CNBC are not reporters or journalist. They are teleprompter readers playing reporters on TV.

All the court jester (Stewart) is doing is pointing out that the emperor (CNBC) has no clothes.

[markburn]

Actually the other comments here has already counted all the (lots of) points you're missing.
I want to add just one thing:
Stewart has always said, he just a clown, while Cramer is the guy who's praised by CNBC with slogans like "In Cramer we trust".

[JimR]

Thanks Mike, for proving what we all knew: CNBC just doesn't get it.

[Larry of Corrales]

What we have here in Mike Hegedus is yet another CNBC financial analyst taking a shot at John Stewart because he bloodied their nose. What you will find Mike, with a little effort on your part, is that most people agree with John Stewart. If you financial experts (???) were doing your jobs maybe we wouldn't be in this mess.

[Pucky]

I think that Stewart got one thing extremely wrong in his interview.

He made it seem like the people who run CNBC knew the whole thing was going to go into the crapper.

No they didn't

You can make just as much money on a down market as you do on an up market, if you are willing to place your bets that way.

If they knew it, then those same people would have made a fortune just by being ahead of the curve.

Does anyone see any evidence that they put their own money up, and made a fortune by being faster than the rest of us?

I don't.

There are (and always will be shenanigans). That is true no matter what the market does. But that isn't what Stewart was complaining about.

So the substance of what Stewart is complaining about is mostly nonsense. Yes, people lied to us, but they always lie. That is what you have to expect. You know how you can tell they are lying? Their lips are moving.

[Brian Cohoon]

I think part of the problem that maybe YOU'RE missing is that THEY NEVER PUT THEIR OWN MONEY UP. They "place their bets" WITH OURS! If Wall Street is nothing more than one giant legal casino (it is), then at least the "players" should play with their own money...