East Coast Musings 03.15.09: Stewart vs. Cramer

Posted by James Craig on 03.15.2009

This past week's spat between the two hosts had us all captivated and was topped off by a very good interview on The Daily Show. But did this whole thing have to get as big as it did?

In this column, I will explore various facets of the film and television worlds and offer my views on why things are they way they are and where I feel the subject of each topic in heading in the future by weighing both the pros and the cons each is facing. Nothing is safe and no one is safe as from my focus.

Welcome back for another week's installment of East Coast Musings. I'm glad to be back after a small hiatus last week and the events of the past week on television have energized me to say the least. Usually I try and take a look at film and most of what that industry offers us as consumers, from product to ideas we are presented with and expected to accept. This week, however, I want to take a look at something that was the buzz of the airwaves and the fallout from the events this week may continue to be felt well into the future. This week we were witness to a war of words between Jon Stewart of The Daily Show and Jim Cramer from CNBC's Mad Money.

This was a feud born from the events of an episode of The Daily Show, in which Stewart took CNBC's Rick Santelli to task for comments made characterizing home owner's as "losers". Stewart went on for another 7 minutes calling CNBC into question about their "reporting" concerning the current economic crisis and how the network, by in large, tip toed around CEO's and failed to ask the hard hitting questions and getting corporate barons to be accountable for their own actions in the face of what the markets were showing. (I want to say right here and right now that in terms of knowing about the markets and the like I am very much a lay person, and I'm going to try and steer clear of this that section of the story and rather the media firestorm that grew from this story.) This attack, seemingly born from Santelli's canceling his scheduled appearance on The Daily Show, but quickly it became clear that this was something far more serious than the poking that Stewart and the show do on a nightly basis. Stewart's demeanor was much more serious and his crosshairs were set firmly on CNBC.Those at CNBC however, took the comments to task and set forth to defend themselves, with Cramer taking the lead.

The CNBC team as well as the NBC family at large went on a mission to put out the brush fire that Jon Stewart had set in their own back yard.Jim Cramer didn't take The Daily Show's claims and evidence too seriously, claiming it all to be out of context and so on and so on. It seems however that Stewart and his team were equal to the task, and since Cramer was the face of the "enemy" they would then have put into context statements made by Cramer specifically. So it was set as the opposing sides braced for battle.

Cramer doing a PR appearance was on the Today Show had the topic of this words of words brought up and was asked to view the clips for the previous night's Daily Show. His demeanor went from that of a confident and smiling warrior facing down a lowly clown to being much more somber. Actually, somber may be too strong, perhaps deflated would work better. In any event, I think that the gravity of the situation sank in for Cramer as he realized that he may have roused the seldom seen serious side of the Jon Stewart and that he was firmly in the crosshairs. This is the sort of thing those at The Daily Show LIVE for. So it was then set, the face to face meeting of the two sides. Thursday, March 12th will be a day of infamy for Jim Cramer and CNBC.

If you haven't seen the interview yet, you can find it Here, where JD Dunn says in the teaser,"This may be one of the most important interviews of the year. ". I have to disagree to a certain extent. While very provocative and captivating in that "watching a cat toy with a mouse" sort of way, this is may only end up being one of the most important interviews lately. I say this with all due respect to JD and his opinion, but I think that even the interview itself was less of the ground breaking piece that some build it up to be and really, it was more of the same old, same old from Jon Stewart that fans like myself have come to love.

Jim Cramer came out as the face of CNBC and he has been from almost the very start of this whole "feud". While I love watching Jon Stewart in these types of interviews and think that the man can hold his own, this seemed to be almost an ambush of Cramer. I agree with the sentiment brought forth by Stewart that there needs to be some sense of accountability that those in the media need to be beholden to, but in doing so, it seems that Cramer needed to be made and example of. Keeping to his word from the March 10th episode, Stewart and his research crew were able to "cherry pick" from footage of Cramer and use it as ammunition against the man. While I think it certainly worked to call into question Cramer's credibility, I think it also served as a warning to others who would try to go toe to toe with Jon Stewart saying, "We have teeth and we're prepared to fight you." Cramer to me, seemed very contrite. I have seen one description of him as someone trying to be friendly and relatable, even at the expense of defending himself and CNBC. TO me, it he came across as even tempered and thoroughly wanting this to be over. I liked the man that sat in the chair across from Stewart as opposed to the man that had been the focus of a week's worth of clips vollied out into the airwaves by The Daily Show.This might have been too little too late as a point was to be made by Jon Stewart and by this time, the whole issue had become personal. Cramer, the face of CNBC, the one (perhaps chosen to) carrying the company line had stuck his neck out and found it to be fitted for a noose the second he walked onto The Daily Show set. All the while as I watched Jim Cramer get dismantled and stumble and hmm and ha through the interview, I was left to wonder, much like Stewart at the top of the interview, I'm left to wonder, "How did we get here?"

You just need only go back to how the NBC family went on the offensive to see how he seeds were sown. CNBC, MSNBC and NBC proper made this news. They the got their collective feathers all ruffled up and the wagons needed to be circled. They needed to trot out their best to stand up for the network as it was under assault and their best would be the bombastic Cramer. They are after all the leading financial news network and need to look after their own interests and being attacked by a program like The Daily Show would be akin to having Brock Lesnar poked at and made fun of for his mma fighting by me. I would be and annoyance that has not business telling him how to fight and would have to be dealt with swiftly. For CNBC, Jon Stewart was just that annoyance, but unfortunately for them, Jon and co. were much more up to the game then I could ever be when confronted by Lesnar. I think this was the exact move that the writer's and researchers at The Daily Show were waiting for.

I will say this, that people like Cramer who go on television and put themselves out there as "experts" are perhaps some of the ballsiest people on television. You would have to have a pair the size of steroid injected grapefruits to go on the air and make these predictions all the while blasting a whip sound over and over again. It may be this inflated testicular fortitude that lead to this show down, at least on CNBC's part. I would surmise that it may be part of the culture at CNBC to be ballsy. I'm not saying, but to be able to go on the air on a trading floor and call home owners losers and then raise your arms and lead in a chorus of "no" like some would be wall street despot and not forsee or care about, the ramifications of such an action would take balls. Seriously though, did anyone at the network have their own fact checkers go to work and see what could be dug up and brought to bare against them. Were they that confident that they could squash Jon Stewart that they would just send out their own foot soldier into the fray and let him walk into things like the Today Show blunder where Cramer kne won the spot that his goose was cooked? The answer is yes, they even openly mocked Stewart on air, basically saying that he knew nothing and they were going to prove him wrong. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot, then placing it firmly in your mouth. But, the thing is, this isn't even wholly CNBC's fault, they had help in getting the story get to the point that it did.

You see, once CNBC made this tiff "news", the other sharks could smell blood in the water. It seems that CNN in particular were especially invested in exchange between the two sides. Perhaps it was from a stand point of experience that those at CNN were looking out from, having often been the target of Jon Stewart in the past. Afterall, it was on CNN where a "Serious Jon Stewart" made his first appearance. His 2004 on CNN's Crossfire was perhaps the first time we got to see this side of Jon Stewart on such a large stage. Stewart constantly called into question the show's moral integrity and out and out called both Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala for being "partisan hacks". While failing to bring about the discourse that I think Stewart was looking for from the hosts, he proved himself to be able to handle himself in that sort of format. So in that respect, everyone at CNN knew that CNBC and Cramer were playing with fire and were quite happy to help throw gasoline onto the embers. They weren't the only news outlet to do, and it seemed that as the furver grew and grew, more and more media outlets were joining in for the inevitable roast.

I use the blood in the water analogy as I think that it is most fitting to the situation. CNBC and Jon Stewart were going at it on their own terms and CNBC was bloodied and as they brought out their ace in the hole, Jim Cramer, he too was bloodied by Stewart's shots. As each drop hit the media pool, the rest of the sharks could see one of their biggest rivals struggling. They knew that the small and at times ridiculous, Jon Stewart and The Daily Show would be a tenacious opponent and would clear a path to a free meal if they bided their time. They needed to be very mindful of how to go about their business however, and engaged in a waiting game, waiting for CNBC or Cramer to make a mistake. They knew that Jon Stewart would be relentless and they knew they had to plan it out. "Who will slip up first?", "How can we take advantage?", "How do we spin this to meet our agenda?". While not word for word, these questions had to be asked in each war room and pitch meeting from The Daily Show to the Washington Post to the just about anything with CNN. An opportunity for ratings presented itself as well as an opportunity to make a bitter rival come down a notch in the public eye. This was the opportunity to take the very face of a network and watch as he smuggly attacked an opponent, who I'm guessing, he had no idea would counter attack with such ferocity.

Once the waters calmed and morning broke Friday, all the frenzied sharks seemed pleased to see Jim Cramer left for dead floating face down in the spin cycle of the media ocean. "A One Sided Smack Down" and many more basically summing up the same thing. Jim Cramer lost. His reputation may now be irrevocably damaged and as a result, CNBC may also be damaged as the fallout of this confrontation continues to come about. This really could end up in the same way as the 2004 Crossfire appearance did, with a show being brought down by one man.I'm not sure how to feel when I take a step back and look at that statement, as it becomes clear that for over 4 years now, a comedian on a fake news show is the leading media watchdog.

I can only hope that this story has finally come to some sort of a conclusion with Thursday's interview/thrashing of Jim Cramer. NBC has decided to forget that this has ever happened and there is no video or real coverage anywhere to be found from their side of things. Really, who can blame them, as they had their nose bloodied and may have lost one of their most valuable assets to shifting public opinion. Jon Stewart can claim victory, but even as he does, he is being painted by some as the administrations attack dog, quick to even turn on his own. This was after all a blue on blue war of words.This story should not have ever had the legs that it did, but the actions of all the elements discussed above helped to create this frenzy and the only difference in the here and now is that those talking about it were to very charismatic individuals that the public would take notice of rather than the talking heads and the attention gluttons like Rick Santelli that turn some people off to the subject. A subject that hasn't just popped up out of nowhere, but has been at the center of the social conversation for some time now. At least Jim Cramer, unlike Rick Santelli, had the courage and strength of character to appear on a show where he knew he was going to get thrashed and try to present his side of the argument on behalf of himself and his network, if only in the most ineffective of ways.

Rick Santelli owes Cramer a huge "I owe you one" for this, since it was he who stirred up this hornets nest in the first place.