Who's Winning the Cramer vs. Stewart Battle?

Back in the seemingly pre-historic 1950s an interviewer asked pianist Liberace if it bothered him that people made fun of his flamboyance (which was a code word, back then for being gay). He answered:

"I cry all the way to the bank."

Flash forward: this week and last, Jon Stewart makes mincemeat of Jim Cramer over and over again. Cramer fights back during the day, Stewart comes back with yet another clip of Cramer being completely wrong and yet obnoxiously sure of himself.

What's wrong with Cramer? Why does he keep setting himself up to me made a fool of? The answer

He cries all the way to the bank.

Getting picked apart by Jon Stewart is good for Jim Cramer. He gets his name in lights: headlines, follow-up pieces. Look at the coverage here on Huffington Post, for example: suddenly, what Cramer says -- mostly his very visible mistakes, available as video clips -- is interesting to a larger audience.

Like Stewart, Cramer is an entertainer: the larger the audience, the better for him. He's not selling advice to clients, he's selling an audience to advertisers.

It's too easy to forget that sometimes. Rush Limbaugh is my favorite example: he's not a politician, he's an entertainer, and being hateful is good business for him. I don't like what he says? You don't? He cries all the way to the bank too. He must be laughing his head off, not to mention cashing checks, with some politicians and commentators suddenly taking him seriously.

So who's winning the Cramer vs. Stewart battle? Cramer and Stewart. Both are smart enough to keep it going as long as they can. And, along with them, Comedy Central, and NBC, and all the news media that cover them.

Comments

[Stephen Quinn]

To all those who say that Jon Stewart should stick to comedy (and not bore us with serious issues) I suggest the following: the Daily Show is all about satire, which is only sometimes funny.

Satire means treating the shortcomings of those in power to ridicule, parody and sarcasm, all presented in a humorous fashion, in order to bring about improvement. In other words: call the powerful out on their bull***t.

We should do this early and often. Our Founding Fathers call on us, nay demand that we use our precious freedom of speech to crush tyranny in all its forms. This is the job set aside for the free press (i.e. the News Networks.) a job they all too often fail to do.

People like Jon Stewart hold this self-evident truth in their bones, and We the People need to follow his example. Say it loud and say it proud: “Mr. CEO, do what’s right or we’ll through your ass in jail!”
Who watches the Watchers? Answer: Jon Stewart.

Power to the people. Rock on.

[GingerM]

Why hasn't the kind of hard-hitting reporting been done yet by the likes of Wolf Blitzer or (cough cough) Bill O'Reilly?

Because they are owned by the very people who are committing the financial crimes we have been a victim of.

Doesn't it seem odd that the hard-hitting journalism we are all STARVING for was done by The Daily Show, of all places - by a comedian, Jon Stewart.

No one is "laughing" about any of this. Not even Jon Stewart - a hero for standing up for those who can't or won't.

[Samnchgo]

Your comment misses the point. It seems the revolution is being televised. Stewart and The Daily Show are just tapping into the rage that many Americans are feeling right now. The attempt by the wealthy elite since 1980 to create a permanent underclass is having all its ugliness exposed. Right now, Stewart has a bully pulpit from which to tap into that anger in a Howard Beal fashion. But don't be surprised if this economic underclass takes to the streets. Why else would the Bush administration have put military troops in place in the US to quell violence in the streets?

[beyobi]

Bingo!

[aege8th]

Let us not underestimate the power of Jon's satire! Back in 2001-2002, all the media lived in fear of the Bushies. The press basically regurgitated the propaganda emanating from the White House. They were all terrified that Bushie "hit men" would "Plame" them too. Even the late night comics dared not mock the president .

Jon was the first to stand up and say "Hey, the Emperor has no clothes!" He was ruthless and relentless and soon, the tide in the media turned. Jon thrived and finally others started to find their ba!!s. Eventually the MSM opened their eyes and began to think for themselves. I TOTALLY credit Jon for being brave enough to speak up when everyone else was intimidated. He shrugs, in hisself-deprecating way, &says "Hey, what do I know? I'm not a politician or journalist. I'm just a comic." But comedy is only funny when it's mostly truth. He side-stepped around "direct attacks" but still made important, valid points by showing the incredible absurdity and hypocrisy of the Bush administration.

I don't think Jon so much tapped in to the outrage so many of us felt -- he was simply one of us; he felt it the same as we did -- but had the talent and stage to be our voice.

And he does the same now.

I honestly believe he was the first nail in the Bushies' coffin, and I hope (and believe) he will be the catalyst of change again.

[mredder4]

What a completely misguided view of what actually happened with this whole 'feud'. Yes, it is likely that Cramer and Stewart and the networks stand to make some extra money off of the situation, and yes, the war of words did raise the profiles of many different names.

But if you stayed up past 7:30 pm and actually watched the interview on TDS (That's "The Daily Show" for anyone too old [hint: TIM BERRY] to understand), you'd see that Jon Stewart did a great job in journalism himself by asking, bluntly, why CNBC commits such terrible acts of journalism on a daily basis. He also pointed out that they appear to have colluded in a massive theft from long-term investments by short-selling, profit-motivated charlatans that are often portrayed as the engines of the economy (when they are in truth more like rust).

It's completely cynical to think that TDS did this for profile or money. Why do more young people turn to TDS for news? Because it's one of the few places left that does hard-hitting investigative journalism, and young people realize that.

[Tim Berry - Huffpost Blogger]

mredder4: calm down. Before getting all bristly, please notice the date of the post -- well before that interview aired. So I couldn't possibly have seen it, before posting, without a time machine. Perhaps you could have thought of that, or even read it right there on the post, before going at the age thing.

Nobody's criticizing Jon Stewart or TDS or the Comedy Channel in the post, and it seems like you are, in your comment, by implying that their having a business is a bad thing. Are you saying that the Comedy Channel isn't a business, or that it would be insulting them to suggest that they make more money with better ratings, or even, gasp, they might be happier with profits than without? Is that "completely cynical?" I don't think so, but if you do, then yes, I'm guilty. I do think people can be good at what they do, entertaining, interesting, etc., and also make money. Horribly cynical, I know, but maybe that's what happens when you get so old.

[mredder4]

You seemed to imply that the situation was manufactured for the ratings-boosting effect, when in truth, the ratings bonus was purely from the audience's interest in the material being discussed. TDS didn't start out to provoke anything like what happened, and it was largely the response by CNBC and Cramer himself, dropping by every NBC-owned program to plug his defense, that led TDS to continue addressing the subject. Good business IS taking advantage of situations like that, but to believe that it was somehow pre-planned? Anticipated and then augmented? I doubt very much that any television network executive anywhere is even capable of that much originality, though they seem perfectly capable of exploiting it.

Audiences seeking real news will naturally gravitate to the places in which it can be found, and in this case, it was The Daily Show. Yeah, it was good for Comedy Central, but let's be honest: the goal of TDS was to shine the light on the hollow journalism practices of cable financial "news" networks, NOT to brighten the balance sheets of their network or parent corporation.

[395spoons]

Who's winning? Easy:

Stewart's ratings are up 20%
Cramer's ratings are down 24%.

[Tim Berry - Huffpost Blogger]

@395spoons hey you're winning this one then because you've got real numbers.

As I wrote this post I was guessing that the publicity, even though it's bad publicity (IMP), would be good for Cramer. Cramer gets my focus because it seems more obvious that it's good for Jon Stewart because he's both right and funny. That it could be good for Cramer to get reamed, because it brought him public attention and therefore higher ratings, seemed ironic to me, but likely.

And if your ratings numbers are right, then I guessed wrong. Good. I'm glad. Stewart deserves higher ratings, and Cramer doesn't.

[aege8th]

This last week or so, since the Cramer vs. Stewart biz, the only reason to watch Cramer was to see the progress of this so-called feud. Certainly nobody in their right mind would turn to Cramer for actual financial advice! His insights into the market are worthless; his ability (by his own admission) to suss out BS on the part of CEO's feeding him bogus info is nil. (Meanwhile, Jon's BS-meter is HIGHLY sensitive and he calls out his guests all the time!)

When this fake feud is over, it'll be Jon left standing taller. Jon does his job: he's entertaining, he points out the absurdity of the world and the rest of the media, he "calls" the BS'ers. That why we tune in, and he has not disappointed. Cramer, on the other hand, might well have added to the suffering of many people in direct (by getting them to invest in Bear et al and losing money) or indirect (perpetrating the frauds on Wall Street) ways.

Jon has proven honorable. Cramer is a shill.

[noradunn]

Your reasoning is a load of crap. The interview Cramer was forced to endure on Jon Stewart's show was the only one I've seen on ANY show it which one of these deliberately dishonest network shills was stripped bare. This is no dog and pony show. Stewart as a journalist is first rate. To say CNBC did well? You're as out of touch as the Just Say No republicans.

[uffa]

You and 395spoons above you are right on the money. Dont' have a clue where Mr. Berry is coming from, but Cramer is in the toilet as a result of this. Even those poor dupes who were still looking to him to tell them what to do are not going to tune in any more.

[Tim Berry - Huffpost Blogger]

@noradunn and @uffa as to where I'm coming from, it's not that I like Cramer or ever did. I am just cynically guessing that the flap will be good for his career, along the lines of even bad publicity being better than no publicity. And, after all, here we are all posting and commenting about him.

I don't dispute 395Spoons' numbers, and if that's what the ratings show, then my guess was wrong, at least on the short term. If so, I'm happy to be wrong on this one.

I also watched the Thursday night Cramer appearance on the Daily Show, and I have to admit, it does make my guess of it less likely, because he seemed so helpless in the face of the video evidence.

Still, on the long term, we all know of people whose ability to make people mad at them helped their careers. If we did a poll of random people on the street, do you think more of them would recognize Jim Cramer today, compared to a month ago, or a year ago? I do. Some of these people disgraced in public come back with bumps in their careers because of it. Don't they?

[pfa46]

The head of Enron laughed all the way to the bank (then jail); the NYC hotel heiress laughed all the way to the bank (then jail); Robert Mugabe laughs all the way to the bank; Bernie Madoff laughed allthe way to the bank (now jail); the investors and finance people who have killed themselves laughed all the way to the bank (then died). Liberace's comment was a good for him from me remembering those times, but it was part of protecting his image. No one knows how the ridicule affected him on the inside. Millions of people were cheering in their homes as they watched this interview.

[Wiseronenow]

Heard this morning that Cramer might be investigated for fraud by the SEC because of a taping he did outlining "in detail" how he screwed the market place. If CNBC needs a fall guy, Cramer is their guy and he was too stupid to see it coming. He should be sending Stewart a thank you note. And, what's with Cramer rolling up his sleeves for Stewart's show? Yes, I know he does it on his own show. He must have wanted to continue to protray a "manly-man" personna. Not.

[Dystopic]

he clearly admitted to fomenting.

[Joseph VIII]

That Cramer and Stewart were making money was the first thing that occurred to me... Both of them are making money.

At the same time, Stewart has a legitimate point -- despite that they are both entertainers, people listen and take the debate seriously. It is a serious debate, in the real world. That people take the Hollywood reality show version of life seriously (and I think both Washington and Wall Street have become this sort of reality show) is sad, but at least this way Stewart's bringing attention to the real damage and illegal behavior -- the sideshow -- that those in the know have caused. I think in this respect that he won the debate.

We watch it all on YouTube -- no cable, no satellite, no TV antenna. I read newspapers and every article that interests me on HuffPost and the NYT, following links where they lead. Neither Stewart or Cramer's advertisers reach me.

[noradunn]

Good comedy is a about truth, you fool.

[Yad]

Who's winning you ask? Well, I guess it depends on what happens in the course of bringing our economy back from the brink (assuming we're not already there). Do any of us really believe that Cramer has stopped illegally shorting stocks (i.e., Naked Short Selling & Phantom Stocks)? Stewart was exactly right when he pointed out that all of these financial firms and 'Financial analysts' have been more concerned with short term gains rather than long term stability. I would say that Stewart (and the American people) would 'win' if we start a large scale public indictment of the media entities that participated in this fraud. If we actually see regulation of the financial sector that's worth a damn, and we have these CEOs charged with fraud and Securities violations.

What I would absolutely love to see is the dissolution of the SEC and a new regulatory body in its stead. I would say that the SEC is just as complicit if not more so than the financial news outlets. Over the last 20 years they have failed over and over again.

[Twayn]

Like many federal watchdog agencies, the SEC was pretty much neutered during the Bush administration. Schapiro was on the Hill this week telling Congress the SEC needs additional funding now or it will remain an ineffective organization. Just another ugly legacy courtesy of the Bushies.

[sandyboy]

Why is everyone so surprised that CNBC and all the MSM is conservatively slanted? Remember they are owned by conservatives. As Wall Street goes, so goes their future. I have seen Jon Stewart interviewed by Bill Moyes. Jon Stewart may be a comedian but he is extremely intelligent.

[uffa]

He also visits Veterans' hospitals in his spare time, with no cameras following him around, no photo ops. He's the real deal.

[observer151]

A big part of the problem is the concentration of media in the hands of the few. Diversity of opinion, thorough investigation, and thoughtful writing/br­oadcasting is the hallmark of a healthy society.

Do you think Woodward & Bernstein would ever have been the scope to investigate Wategate had the Washington Post been owned by GE or Rupert Murdoch's News Corp.?

[Pucky]

It was an excellent show last night.

But what I really wanted Stewart to end the show with was something like this,

"So it is easy to be critical of something like the financial meltdown after the fact. But what else is going on, RIGHT NOW, that we should also be critical of, but aren't?

HIndsight is 20-20. And Stewart and Co can gain kudos for shining a spotlight on an easy target.

But what is he culpable of ignoring, which is just as bad???

(Discuss amongst yourselves.)

Possible issues;

global warming,
near-religious belief in global warming without sufficient evidence,
ruining our economy by wasting enormous sums of Federal money,
devastating our fisheries,
ignoring the ramifications of not having a proper power grid to transport wind energy,
ignoring the need for more nuclear power,
ignoring the need for reprocessing of nuclear waste,
overpopulation
overuse of our water supplies and depletion of our water table
killing of the unwanted unborn
having children out of wedlock
a tax system that promotes economic short term gains but ignoring long term profitability
subsidized housing for those who should never buy homes

Just a short list. We ignore these issues at our peril. It is easy to look at a debacle and be critical. Much harder to be critical before your whole neighborhood burns down, but you can see the fire in your neighbor's house.

[noralou]

I don't think Cramer anticipated that a comedian would be the one to call him on his BS. I think it was brave of him to go on the show, but his ass was kicked! Real winner, the American Public. Thank you, Mr. Stewart!

[PocketWatch]

Tim Berry does make a good point, regardless of the current back-and-forth between these two men, and it is this:

Television shows are the spaces between commercials.

That's the way the TV industry is designed, that's what the shows are for, and the successful ones get renewed. We have to remember, regardless of other things, that, at its simplest, the shows we watch are a way to keep us tuned to that particular channel until the next commercial hits our eyeballs.

I'm not trashing TV in general, just pointing out something we tend to forget.

[DarthVector]

hence why i watch daily show on the website, and nothing else they offer on viacom (other than colbert, of course)... ;^)

[VOTER]

The BIGGEST LOSER - CNBC!