Jon Stewart is No Hero
Posted by Enrique on 03.16.2009
Standards and practices
Jon Stewart, serious commentator
I'm not a fan of The Daily Show myself, but I understand it's all the rage with the young folk these days. It's widely respected in elite circles as well – over the last few years, host Jon Stewart has been the subject of several hagiographic profiles in the MSM, such as this August 2008 piece in the New York Times headlined, "Is Jon Stewart the Most Trusted Man in America?" In addition, Stewart's witty send-up of media punditry has been a ratings hit for Comedy Central – according to this Huffington Post article, The Daily Show was drawing about 2 million viewers a day during the height of the 2008 election season. Much has been made of the fact that many people prefer to get their news from The Daily Show than network television or newspapers, and that those viewers tend to be better informed on current events than the public at large.
Most recently, Stewart has been earning praise for his finger-wagging condemnation of CNBC host Jim Cramer during an interview on The Daily Show last week (my 411 colleague J.D. Dunn posted video of the Stewart/Cramer interview here). Many MSM pundits seem to agree that Stewart has done some kind of public service by humiliating Cramer and criticizing CNBC for slipshod financial reporting. At one point, Stewart accused CNBC of criminal negligence for failing to warn the American public about last year's financial crisis, telling Cramer, "But you're pretending that you are an innocent. Listen, you knew what the banks were doing and yet, were touting it for months and months. The entire network was. And so now to pretend that this was some sort of crazy, once-in-a-lifetime tsunami that nobody could have seen coming is disingenuous, at best, and criminal at worst."
With all due respect to Mr. Stewart and his well-informed audience – what a crock. I don't mean to be obvious, but the job of cable news talking heads is to express their opinions in entertaining ways. No one is obligated to listen to them. If you go to a casino and lose your life savings playing roulette, it's not the casino's fault – it's your fault. If you listened to Jim Cramer and made unwise investments, it's your fault.
If CNBC was supposedly negligent for failing to predict (or properly analyze) the deflation of the housing bubble and the ensuing consequences, it raises the question – how come The Daily Show didn't warn its viewers about it? Stewart seems to think CNBC had an obligation to report on what we now know were irresponsible investment practices by many financial institutions. Didn't The Daily Show and Jon Stewart have a similar obligation?
Of course, Stewart's defenders would say The Daily Show is satire, and shouldn't be held to the same standard. Except it isn't just satire. It's common knowledge that Jon Stewart is a widely respected commentator with a significant (and well-informed) audience. Surely he's aware of his influence – are we supposed to believe he didn't read that NYT article anointing him the most trusted man in America? His contretemps with Cramer drew over 2.3 million viewers. By comparison, an episode of Cramer's CNBC show Mad Money draws just over 300,000 viewers. And yet Stewart's fans are portraying him as some kind of valiant hero for publicly shaming Cramer. That's like praising the captain of the basketball team for defeating a wheelchair-bound classmate in a pickup game. Stewart is substantially more powerful and influential than Cramer, and how has he used that power? To demagogue a cable network few people watch. Public service, indeed.
Obviously, all art is subjective, and many people find The Daily Show to be funny and informative. Fair enough, there's no accounting for taste, etc. But there was nothing heroic about Jon Stewart's pious reprobation of Jim Cramer. Stewart's smug treatment of a hapless interview subject may have been many things – it certainly wasn't brave.
The reason the Daily Show didn't report it is because their show doesn't focus on financial circles. It deals more with politics, and they regularly expose inaccuracies and contradicting statements made by political figures. For them to also have to serve as watchdog for a financial sector which they admittedly are not experts on is asking too much.
Granted, you could say the same about CNBC, saying it's not their job to expose coverups but rather maintain viewers, but they're closer to the problem than the Daily Show was.
Jon Stewart is saying that if you know a system is flawed, you should expose it. CNBC knew it, and didn't. The Daily Show knows CNBC is flawed, and is exposing them.
The Daily Show is doing more good for the world than CNBC is.
Posted By: Jim (Guest) on March 16, 2009 at 04:20 PM
Here Here. Enrique! Spot on.
Riddle me this, as the network/Cramer supposedly "touted" the financial sector why did the market not respond to their efforts. Why all the selling when CNBC touts buying?
BECASUE NO ONE IN THERE RIGHT MIND TAKES ANYTHING ON CNBC SERIOUSLY.
Only folks taking CNBC at their word seem to be the Daily Show audience.
Posted By: AdmChesterMynutz (Guest) on March 16, 2009 at 04:21 PM
So it's Stewart's fault that his show is more trusted and now he's obligated to become a news show even though he's on COMEDY CENTRAL!!!????
That's ridiculous. By your logic, the moment someone demonstrates a modicum of qualification for something, they're obligated, regardless of whether or not they want to do it. So if we all think your column is great and in two years, you've got more readers than any other website, you sir are OBLIGATED to act like you're the president. Don't ask questions, you got the audience, now act like it!
Jon Stewart wanted to do a comedic show about the news. In the process, he ended up telling people more about what's going on in America than newspeople do. THAT'S NOT JON STEWART'S FAULT! And that's pretty much exactly the point he was trying to make at the end of the interview when he told Cramer: "maybe now you can go back to doing real reporting and I can go back to doing fart noises."
And by the way, your analogy about the basketball team is wrong. The REAL analogy is: Stewart is the head of the comedy troupe at school. He sees that the captain of the basketball team is less athletic than he is. But the captain of the basketball team acts like he's Michael Jordan. Stewart steps in and says "hey, don't you find it odd that people think I'm better at you than this and yet I'm just a freakin' comedian? Why not either ship up or stop declaring yourself an expert?"
It's not Stewart saying he's a guru at the stock market. It's Stewart saying "I've got footage of you talking about how to manipulate the market. This shows that you DELIBERATELY know what you're doing here. This same manipulation has caused it to crash. Yet you belittle the 'losers' while taking NONE of the culpability."
Maybe if Santelli and Cramer hadn't been so smug, Stewart wouldn't have had to verbally undress them in response. And it's really quite sad that neither of them have managed any sort of reasoned rebuttal. Food for thought.
Posted By: BMN (Guest) on March 16, 2009 at 04:28 PM
Good ol' Cherry-picking Enrique!
Posted By: Jamal (Guest) on March 16, 2009 at 04:29 PM
That's very true Enrique. I too agree that CNBC was not liable as described by Stewart.
I was watching CNN during the weekend and they said that he had baited Cramer to an interview. Not true. I watched all of the week's episodes and Cramer was the one who came to CNBC's defense going against Jon. They had a back and forth of sorts and Cramer went on the show. He certainly knew it was coming.
As far as Cramer is concerned, the guy told people to buy the stocks when they obviously should not have. He's not liable, but he's ignorant at best. The comparison with the casino does not work since the casino does not guarantee that you will get your money back; Cramer did just that.
It was funny television and that's all.
Posted By: Memin (Guest) on March 16, 2009 at 04:40 PM
I think you're missing the point. And bravery was not the point.
Personal responsibility is. Were people personally responsible for their investments? Absolutely. And in order to make sure that they made the right calls, it was important for people to do research. Is not CNBC a reasonable place to start with that research? After all, they claim such knowledge of the market that they would seem from their advertising to be a good place to start. There are, at the very least, truth in advertising laws to follow, ever since the turn of the last century when the US realized the "caveat emptor" thing didn't turn out so hot for most people! So either CNBC is a tool for researching the market and the insider knowledge require to navigate it, or it is not. In either case, CNBC is responsible for misleading people, as much perhaps as AIG or any of the other major culprits in this.
Stewart's point was an intelligent one, well argued - and had the former hedge fund manager who went on there (Cramer) had a fraction of the preparation he should have had it would have been interesting to watch. Such preparation would have at least included a. not blatantly lying about the unethical AND illegal business practices he espoused and admitting to practicing as a hedge fund manager; b. SINCERELY apologizing for his own role in the market breakdown; and c. either asking Jon's help to end the corruption or proving, with facts, that no such corruption existed (the latter being a tall order).
Any other approach was doomed. The defensive crap simply doesn't play well, especially when you have a very angry and extremely intelligent/well read guy on the other side of the table and that guy is willing to use a combination of inescapable facts and your own words to paint you into a corner.
In short, Jon Stewart once again showed what a debate show should be, with a comedy vehicle (that wasn't, to be fair, very funny). Cramer showed himself to be a fool, and all the people who are crying foul need to take a step back and perhaps learn something. To do otherwise is to basically whine that Jon Stewart is "mean." He's not - he's just mad, smart, and well armed with what quite possibly could be the truth. If his perspective is so flawed and his ideas don't have the ring of truth, then somebody intelligent ought to be able to argue him down.
Posted By: Keith (Guest) on March 16, 2009 at 04:42 PM
I agree and disagree with you. It wasn't some big public service he did; but the general points he brought up were valid. Stewart has correctly pointed out on multiple occasions the ratings-obsessed circus that modern journalism has become.
Sure he focused slightly on the wrong target (what? No lambasting the Fed? or Congress itself?), but journalistic integrity is, if not dead, on serious life support.
Stewart was right on in pointing out that CNBC basically just parrots whatever Wall Street tells them. Just like CNN/Fox/MSNBC/etc parrot whatever the administration tells me.
Posted By: Alex (Guest) on March 16, 2009 at 04:44 PM
The Daily Show is the a great example of infotainment; it's both informative and highly entertaining. Jon Stewart is oftentimes the smartest guy in the room, and he's not afraid to call out the hypocrisy and incompetence of cable news pundits. Plus, he's damn funny.
In contrast, cable news channels are a bad example of infotainment. They're oftentimes not entertaining at all, while also intellectually bankrupt.
Posted By: matt (Guest) on March 16, 2009 at 04:45 PM
If you have "news" in the title of your network then it is the obligation of the show that touts "newsworthy" information to do investigative journalism as a matter of public service. Otherwise, they should not tout themselves as a news network. Period. And they do not...because they want the credibility of a news network without the responsibility. I also find it funny that the majority of people in the media both television and print find it almost impossible to give themselves a failing grade. There may be some journalists still out there that focus on the fundamentals of journalism like checking for facts but the majority of them on broadcast and cable news stations are models who can read a teleprompter.
Posted By: shevas01 (Guest) on March 16, 2009 at 04:48 PM
U seem to be missing the point. Wetheror not the Daily Show draws more viewers, it in no way shape or form tells people on how to invest their money. CNBC is supposed to be a well respected and ACCURATE financial program. To say that no one was required to invest like they say is for Fox news to say that New York was attacked by terrorists "but hey, we might not be right about this, the decision is up to you."
Posted By: guest489 (Guest) on March 16, 2009 at 04:52 PM
Stewart took issue with CNBC's slogan "In Cramer We Trust" and the fact that it markets itself as something it is not.
if Cramer's is an entertainment show, strictly, then it should be marketed as such. Jon's show is comedy and satire and never pretends differently (unless Stewart has an ass to kick, in which case people get mad at him for not being funny)
Enrique missed the point.
Posted By: Guest#5989 (Guest) on March 16, 2009 at 04:55 PM
Neither party had an obligation to report on what we now know were irresponsible investment practices by many financial institutions. Stewart is not blaming CNBC for this... he is blaming CNBC for REPORTING THE OPPOSITE, when they knew financial institutions were leveraged 30 to 1.
"Listen, you knew what the banks were doing and yet, were touting it for months and months."
Also,
"That would be great, but it’s not just you. It’s larger forces at work. It is this idea that the financial news networks are not just guilty of a sin of omission but a sin of commission. That they are in bed with them."
Granted, MSM and rating suffocate human morale and Stewart knows this, which is why he is NOT attacking Cramer as much as he is CNBC, and he says this...
"Let me just explain to you very quickly one thing that is somewhat misinterpreted. This was not directed at you, per say. I just want you to know that. We threw some banana cream pies at CNBC. Obviously, you got some schmutz on your jacket from it. Took exception."
Cramer attacked himself when he gave that interview on TheStreet.com... Stewart just provided the air time. IMO, Stewart soft-pedalled when he could have really put Cramer out.
I think the best overall response to this article comes straight from the interview's transcript:
STEWART: "Isn’t that, you know, look—we are both snake oil salesmen to a certain extent-"
CRAMER: "I’m not discerning…"
STEWART: "But we do label the show as snake oil here. Isn’t there a problem with selling snake oil and labeling it as vitamin tonic and saying that it cures impetigo... Isn’t that the difficulty here?"
Posted By: Guest (Guest) on March 16, 2009 at 05:09 PM
He was pointing out how CNBC is supposed to be all about the financial market. They even advertise themselves as people who are experts.
Cramer admitted to knowing a lot of the bad practices going on but didn't say anything on TV about it. Instead he told people to buy stock in companies he knew were doing bad deals.
How is Stewart calling him out on it a bad thing?
Regular watchers of the Daily Show could also tell you that there is rarely if ever any discussion of Wallstreet on there (Prior to the financial meltdown) while CNBC talks about it EVERY day.
It's silly to draw comparisons.
Posted By: Jake G (Registered) on March 16, 2009 at 05:14 PM
Your article forgets two things.
1) Nobody at the Daily Show is a financial professional with decades of experience, let alone any kind of financial expert. How can they be expected to know the inner workings of said economy. During the talks with Cramer, Stewart admitted several times he had a layman's perspective on the matter.
2)Cramer, CNBC, and the rest of the idiots knew most of what was happening. They knew the house of cards that was being built by people like AIG. For experts with decades of financial experience, it is practically inexcusable if they didn't know what would happen. Looking at it all laid out now, it is like some massive international level ponzi scam. A few get incredibly rich people get even richer on the backs of entire nations. They new what was happening, and said nothing. Regardless of having 1/7th of Stewart's audience they should have said something. Its like Stewart using lies to manipulate his audience into inciting a riot.
Posted By: Bavitz (Guest) on March 16, 2009 at 05:19 PM
Stewart is A FUCKING COMIDIAN! IT'S HIS JOB TO BE FUNNY! AND NOONE IS CALLING HIM A FUCKING HERO! STOP FUCKING COMPLAINING THE MAN IS DOING HIS JOB AND UNLIKE YOU DOING IT WELL!
Posted By: Live In Canada, Sucks to be US (Guest) on March 16, 2009 at 05:38 PM
Holy shit shut the fuck up.
Posted By: Captain_Snackpipe (Guest) on March 16, 2009 at 05:40 PM
What a pointless opinion.
Posted By: Will (Guest) on March 16, 2009 at 05:41 PM
Enrique, your an idiot and I question how you have a job!
Posted By: Brodie (Guest) on March 16, 2009 at 06:04 PM
"...how come The Daily Show didn't warn its viewers about it?"
Because they aren't a finance show. For that you have shows on channels like, say, CNBC,to do that for you. And if those shows are disengenious, they god forbid somebody from a show on Comedy Central take them to task for it.
So if The Daily Show wasn't warning people about what was going on than Jon Stewart shouldn't be upset about other shows dropping the ball? Get fucking serious.
Posted By: Zingy (Guest) on March 16, 2009 at 06:06 PM
The obvious cluelessness of 'serious' pundits is the very reason Stewart is relevant. Stewart isn't presenting himself as a serious pundit, Cramer is. When serious pundits fail, and the clown who is just masquerading as a pundit has to come in and show them how serious journalism is done, that's the tragedy of the situation.
Also, don't argue that Stewart somehow bullied Cramer into this embarrassing interview. Cramer empowered Stewart by reacting to him. He walked up to a circus clown with a water squirting flower, and is now surprised that he's wet in the face, and everyone is laughing at him.
Posted By: KTL (Guest) on March 16, 2009 at 06:16 PM
Enrique, how typically predictable you are. Can anyone from the Right talk any sense?
Posted By: EnriqueisaMoron (Guest) on March 16, 2009 at 06:20 PM
Jon Stewart isn't funny.
He takes away from jokes that are already funny by making some stupid jewish voice and saying some dumbass comment.
Posted By: Kent Baker (Guest) on March 16, 2009 at 06:34 PM
Enrique, I would show you all the ways you got this wrong, but too many other people bet me to the punch.
I think the major mistake you make is that you confuse entertainment with news, and while we, the blogging class, have seen no distinction between the two, there is a difference between the Fourth estate, which we rely on to tell us about the workings of our governments and corporate businesses, and the entertainment industry.
When Jon Stewart did the smackdown on Crossfire, he pointed out that the program on before him was puppets making prank calls.
I rely on news stations to tell me the news, and comedy shows for my entertainment. The sad truth is that I get more information from a comedy show than from a news program.
Posted By: Ray Church (Guest) on March 16, 2009 at 06:53 PM
411mania, you are part of the problem. I wish I could take back my click on your article. And if I can help it, I'll forever avoid reading anything you write.
Posted By: The general public (Guest) on March 16, 2009 at 07:36 PM
"the job of cable news talking heads is to express their opinions in entertaining ways"
No the job of people involved in news is to deliver news and journalism. Which means asking questions and fact checking. Something I see less and less of. That's the problem!!
Posted By: Rich (Guest) on March 16, 2009 at 07:44 PM
His point wasn’t just about Cramer failing to warn his audience that the market was about to tank; It was also about Cramer’s culpability in creating a short sell market with his shady speculations.
Posted By: Guest#3683 (Guest) on March 16, 2009 at 07:51 PM
after reading this article i was gonna bash you but it seems a lot of other people beat me to the punch.
CNBC is a financial network and does like 18 hours of live tv a day reporting financial news. comedy central has two shows that talk about politics and other things for an hour a day 4 days a week so how are they supposed to inform everyone of this financial crisis?
In one of the ads for mad money it says IN CRAMER WE TRUST, like cramer is god and tells his viewers how the ecomony is going to be. cramer has meetings with CEO's and other financial big wigs at companies and knows how they are making money and how for him to make money and then reports something different to his viewers. did you see the old footage of cramer meeting with the guy and was like this is what you do with your money even tho is pry illegal the SEC hasn't caught on yet.
cramer is a joke, stewart makes jokes
Posted By: DJ (Guest) on March 16, 2009 at 08:29 PM
Hey if you all want to see what happens when a comedy guy Colbert gets OWNED by George Will. Even though I dont agree with Will some of the time,I loved seeing these comedians getting owned. How hard is that to make fun of these polititcal haks.
Posted By: danman (Guest) on March 16, 2009 at 09:18 PM
I didn'y hasve to guess who wrote this article considering the source. Enrique can never fathom a liberal doing something that makes a conservative look bad.
Posted By: Guest#7878 (Guest) on March 16, 2009 at 09:40 PM
I didn'y hasve to guess who wrote this article considering the source. Enrique can never fathom a liberal doing something that makes a conservative look bad.
Posted By: Guest#6280 (Guest) on March 16, 2009 at 09:40 PM
I disagree- Jon Stewart IS a hero.
I once saw him give a choking puppy CPR and then jump on and stop a moving school bus from going over a cliff.
Posted By: He IS a hero (Guest) on March 16, 2009 at 09:52 PM
George Will is a moron.
Posted By: Zingy (Guest) on March 16, 2009 at 09:53 PM
"I'm not a fan of The Daily Show myself, but I understand it's all the rage with the young folk these days."
Are you 70 years old? That would explain your rambling, terrible article. Is it possible to block articles by certain writers from now on?
Posted By: Steve307 (Guest) on March 16, 2009 at 10:34 PM
"No one is obligated to listen to them. If you go to a casino and lose your life savings playing roulette, it's not the casino's fault – it's your fault. If you listened to Jim Cramer and made unwise investments, it's your fault."
Wouldn't it be more like if you were playing roulette and a guy said "Bet on 27" and you lost?
Posted By: Conk (Guest) on March 16, 2009 at 10:34 PM
What BMN said.
Posted By: Shady Lurker (Guest) on March 16, 2009 at 10:34 PM
"I don't mean to be obvious, but the job of cable news talking heads is to express their opinions in entertaining ways."
You just nullified your entire argument right there. "Cable News Talking Heads". "CABLE NEWS" means yes there should be facts and figures and news behind their opinions.
Posted By: Elliot (Guest) on March 16, 2009 at 11:02 PM
"No one is obligated to listen to them. If you go to a casino and lose your life savings playing roulette, it's not the casino's fault – it's your fault. If you listened to Jim Cramer and made unwise investments, it's your fault."
Wouldn't it be more like if you were playing roulette and a guy said "Bet on 27" and you lost?
Posted By: Conk (Guest) on March 16, 2009 at 10:34 PM
__________________________________________________
...just so long as the person who told you to bet on #27 was a veteran reporter from a reputable casino gaming news source who makes a living by as a gaming guru.
Posted By: Guest#4261 (Guest) on March 16, 2009 at 11:12 PM
The only reason Stewart even took on Cramer is becuase Cramer had the audacity to point out how stupid Obamas socialist agenda is.If Cramer had towed the line and left the messiah alone none of this would of happend.
Posted By: John (Guest) on March 16, 2009 at 11:33 PM
Cramer may have only 300,000 people but those people probably are involved in trading. The number of people involved in trading on the Daily Show is likely to be significantly smaller due in large part to the age range. Not many college age students have lots of money to invest. However they are worried about the economy as they are worried about a workforce that may not have a place for them when they graduate.
The point of Stewart's rant was to bring up the fact that financial news isn't doing its job by asking tough questions to the people in power. If the tough questions were being asked Jon Stewart wouldn't have material to work with.
But lets ignore those facts and complain about Stewart being a big meanie. Besides, Cramer may not make wise investment suggestions but he's no fool. He knew what was coming his way and didn't deny any of it. You are defending someone who doesn't want your help.
Posted By: your point is null (Guest) on March 17, 2009 at 01:16 AM
Worst column ever. EVER!
Posted By: Guest#6350 (Guest) on March 17, 2009 at 04:38 AM
AND, not only is your opinion wrong, Enrique, but you're ugly too. And probably hispanic. AND a Righty. You really suck, yo!
lol j/k
Posted By: Shady Lurker (Guest) on March 17, 2009 at 08:34 AM
You, sir, are a moron.
Posted By: Guest#7506 (Guest) on March 17, 2009 at 10:45 AM
It's generally agreed upon that although Stewart is a 'comedian', he gets more respect that most of the network and cable news anchors. First off, how sad is it that this is the case? What does that say about the state of journalism in this country? I don't agree with Sean Hannity much, but he's absolutely right when he says journalism is dead in this country. CNN, Fox, PMSNBC, etc. They're all jokes. There are no FACTS anymore. It's all spin, and for that reason, Stewart is probably just as deserving of respect. The other anchors aren't comedians...they're just jokes. I don't care for Stewart's politics, for the most part, but he also tries to be informed, and respectful to his guests, but isn't afraid to call bullshit when that's what they're spouting. For that reason, Stewart deserves MORE respect than most of the 'real news' personalities. Bottom line: If you're unprepared and incompetent, and go on the Daily Show, you're probably going to get called on it. Unless you're Barack Obama. Then, Stewart will take a tub of nut butter on the chin. That's about my only real complaint with the guy.
Posted By: Rob Corddry (Guest) on March 17, 2009 at 11:28 AM
Is CNBC a reasonable place to do research?
Unequivocally No.
In fact, watching television is rarely if ever a reasonable source to research markets or anything else.
Posted By: AdmChesterMynutz (Guest) on March 17, 2009 at 12:26 PM
I've never known anyone who believed CNBC is a well respected and ACCURATE financial program.
The real crimes are committed by Bob Pasani. That dude knows no one, stands on the floor by himself and talks more bullshit than anyone on television. He has never actually traded a stock. Before television, he was a real-estate broker.
And he looks like Drew Pinski.
Posted By: AdmChesterMynutz (Guest) on March 17, 2009 at 12:34 PM
I thinke it's very brave and heroic to say that a guy who doesn't think he is a hero isn't a hero. Well done.
Posted By: Shizzle (Guest) on March 17, 2009 at 01:17 PM
what stewart did was just expose how entrenched cnbc was in wall st. then there was the gladhanding and butt kissing that went on tv as they bankrupt the country.
the same way the mainstream media bowed down to Bush leading to the iraq war. cnbc did the same with this financial crisis.
Posted By: jd (Guest) on March 17, 2009 at 02:35 PM
Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz was sicking and full of hate..but thats why people hate NYers..what a punk,,i guess he is trying to recovery from is childhood and divorce parents..and being bullied for being jewish kid at school...he plays his game to make money by attacking people...cramer game is stocks and not attack people..lebowitz drop this last name..to play the common american last name..what a hippocrit
Posted By: Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz (Guest) on March 17, 2009 at 02:48 PM
The funny thing is Enrique actually thinks he is smart. You do not get it sir. You don't find it funny because the joke is on you. You and people like you are being exposed as douchebags and you are mad that people think you are douchebags when that happens. Pull your head out of your ass before you suffocate. Next time I want to hear a dumbass who thinks they are smart instead of clicking on something you wrote, I'll just listen to the interview part of a porno before the chick starts gagging on cock. Later asshat.
Posted By: hahhah (Guest) on March 17, 2009 at 07:04 PM
You missed the point entirely. Great job.
Posted By: Well. (Guest) on March 17, 2009 at 10:15 PM
Stewart and his fans want to have their cake and eat it too . . its getting tiresome. Either you're a comedy show not to be taken seriously or a real voice in the media. Cramer is a douche for engaging him.
Posted By: C (Guest) on March 17, 2009 at 11:13 PM
False choice, C, false choice: considering only two alternatives, when in fact there are other options. But you are right: Cramer was stupid to engage Stewart, he should have walked away.
But again, the point stands: Jon isn't TRYING to be taken seriously...but the news fails so terribly, people can't help but take him seriously. Newsmakers are funny...and if Jon tells us more about them THAN the news while making us laugh, that's just an unfortunate accident.
Posted By: BMN (Guest) on March 18, 2009 at 10:35 AM
To John:
what? Where is your proof of this. It's the hollowed out thinking that says if I disagree with someone, I have the right to doubt their motives.
IN CONTEXT... Jon Stewart started his segment after Rick Santelli at CNBC went on the floor of Wall Street and ripped on people who were having their homes foreclosed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEZB4taSEoA
It wasn't about the bail out, it was about this asshole's rant. He then attacked CNBC, nnot Cramer, and Cramer is the one who made it about him.
He had nothing to do with Crame going after the bail out...
Posted By: Ray Church (Guest) on March 18, 2009 at 06:36 PM
I'm sad to see that Enrique still hasn't killed himself. Come on, man, do the world a favor. Nobody as stupid as you should continue hogging all that air.
You're the stupidest human being on the planet if you think CNBC and the Daily Show ought to have the same standards. That would be like saying ESPN and Fire Joe Morgan (when it still existed) have the same standards. The New York Times and The Onion? IDENTICAL! Idiot.
Posted By: Sad (Guest) on March 19, 2009 at 01:26 PM
"The only reason Stewart even took on Cramer is becuase Cramer had the audacity to point out how stupid Obamas socialist agenda is. If Cramer had towed the line and left the messiah alone none of this would of happened"
What this guy said.
Posted By: Guest#2815 (Guest) on March 19, 2009 at 01:48 PM
STAY CURRENT