Anti-Climax: Cramer vs. Stewart
I could spill a 1000 words on this, but suffice it to say the well anticipated moment was a bit disappointing. Not because they didn’t throw down and start mud wrestling, but because of the missed opportunities — on both sides. I was surprised Cramer was so mellow, and that encouraged Stewart to go after him more aggressively.
But really, it was what was’nt said that got my attention: Consider the following misunderstandings and blown opportunities:
• Cramer could have better defended what CNBC does well. They speak with a plethora of economic voices and market perspectives, are not at all monolithic (that should have been mentioned). Not all of the anchors were cheering on the highs.
• It was not just Faber’s special reports (which he mentioned), but a number of other appearances that make the channel so well worth-while. Bringing people into the public view who viewers normally don’t get to spend much time with. Indeed, my favorite moments on CNBC are when they spend 3 hours with Warren Buffett, or when with David Einhorn and William Ackman are on the air for extended periods.
• Stewart missed the opportunity to note the lack of accountability of guests (Cramer tangentially touched upon this). My peeves and many readers find the very short, bumper sticker answers extremely distasteful, the Brady Bunch boxes (the octagon!) absurd, and the tendency towards making some shows Jerry Springer-like to be, well Jerry Springer-like.
• Most of the shows — and their guests — have a long-only, fully invested bias (Fast Money is the exception). This was never mentioned.
• TDS also could have noted what seems like a hard right turn the channel has taken since the election. There are several wing nut hosts now speaking their opinions and (what looked like) a 3 to 1 parade of GOP Congressman to Democrats. I don’t watch all day, so it may have evened up- — but the early morning show has been very one sided.
There’s a lot more, but I have other things to do . . .
If you have anything to add to this — I mean serious criticism, not just name calling — please use the comments for that.
>
Source:
Thursday March 12, 2009 – Jim Cramer
The Daily Show
http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/index.jhtml?episodeId=220533
The outtakes may have been more interesting than the aired show:
Jim Cramer Interview Outtake Pt. 1 (05:47)
Jim Cramer criticizes Rick Santelli’s rant and admits he made his own mistakes, in this exclusive, uncensored video.
Jim Cramer Interview Outtake Pt. 2 (08:24)
Jon presents Jim Cramer with some old footage from his shady hedge fund days in this exclusive, uncensored video.
Jim Cramer Interview Outtake Pt. 3 (08:31)
Jim Cramer defends his role as a commentator on an entertainment show in this exclusive, uncensored video.
March 13th, 2009 at 9:17 am
Oh…us poor Americans…to have CNBC foisted upon us like this! And that’s on top of Britney, Bradgelina, Entertainment Tonight and Rush….this is so unfair. How we suffer….
Please.
The entire affair is a croc. It’s a sucker’s play to foment controversy.
Last time I checked, Bloomberg TV is just 2 channels away from CNBC, yet it gets a fraction of the ratings. Why? Because its “boring”. No personalities, and of course, no babes.
Why are people so obsessed with CNBC? If you don’t like it, then turn the channel: Render it unto irrelevance and oblivion by ending the incessant play-by-play of what Kudlow said, or Cramer, etc., etc.
It’s not that people are angry with CNBC…it’s that they ENJOY being angry with CNBC.
March 13th, 2009 at 9:20 am
I’d say Cramer got his ass handed to him
Stewart should have been even harsher. If Cramer claims to not know what is going on then he deserves no show. For Christ’s sake, I’m 26, work a full-time sales job, and saw what was going on…
March 13th, 2009 at 9:24 am
BR, you points are well taken. Lots of missed opportunities but enough was articulated IMO to get the message across about CNBC and other financial journalism carrying on more as infomercial storefronts for the offending vested interests. Cramer was in a tough spot, much deserved, some not. Was impressed by how much Stewart “gets it”. Look at the mileage this has received through the media, mainstream and internet. I am watching with interest to see if CNBC makes any changes to their broadcasting ethics as a result of what is undeniably bad press, widely circulated bad press.
March 13th, 2009 at 9:28 am
I think John Stewart did a fine job given the amount of time that he had. He dedicated pretty much the entire show for the interview. And I also felt that Jim Cramer had a tough time defending some of his statements made on the internet interview (that many of us here knew about from back when he made them).
I, for one, appreciate John Stewart’s bringing these facts to light. He is rightfully expressing the outrage that many of us feel at the shenanigans of Wall Street. I particularly liked it when he pressed Cramer on “Who do you work for? The corporations and the (insider) traders or your viewers?” And I think you have hit on something, Barry: CNBC has become the Fox News of the financial networks. It seems to be letting ideology color its coverage. So-called “permabulls” aren’t so bullish now that Obama is president. (Perhaps that is a contrary indicator?) I for one am going to press for my news outlets/cable/satellite/trading platform to start carrying Bloomberg — or some other ostensibly more balanced financial news network — so that I can have access to better information.
March 13th, 2009 at 9:31 am
My personal pet peeve w/ CNBC is that whenever they actually manage to ask a question of someone that I want to know the answer to, inevitably just as the guest is about to answer, the big “Breaking News” banner comes scrolling across the screen, the anchor interrupts the guest, we cut to something stupid that everyone knows already, and the guest is gone forever. Last night it happened during Fast Money and Tim Seymour (who I don’t really care for but like much more now) called Melissa Lee on it — hysterical.
March 13th, 2009 at 9:32 am
schoolsout, you are in a better position to not miss certain things by being in a full-time sales job. I do remember Barry writing that he will NOT talk with CEO’s, because they always either lie or slant the truth heavily. We are all subject to influence from those around us that we talk to face-to-face.
Witness the buildings full of pretty smart investment professionals at places like Sanford-Bernstein that rode the banks practically to zero while never seeing the 800 lb bad paper gorillas hiding in their assets.
When you talk to con-men you get conned, and Cramer is talking to everyone all the time including the biggest cons (CEO’s)…
March 13th, 2009 at 9:32 am
Barry,
Couldn’t agree with you more. This just wasn’t the forum, I guess, for someone like stewart to have hit on all those points. Cramer tried too hard not to come off defensive or overly aggressive.
All around, it got nothing accomplished and was as anit-climactic as I thought it would be
TRB
March 13th, 2009 at 9:32 am
It seems clear to me that Cramer is now the fall guy for the multiple failures of financial journalism in this country. His sagging, submissive body language told me that he knows it.
I also think Stewart knows it. He was clearly angry, but equally clearly taking no satisfaction in it.
Prediction: Cramer will face indictment for securities fraud, based on some of the clips that Stewart played last night, and that will be CNBC’s excuse to drop him. Or maybe they’ll just drop him as an embarrassment.
Then business as usual.
At least someone on national television finally said, Where are the indictments?
March 13th, 2009 at 9:36 am
It was sort of “beat down” of CNBC.
I think the network will have to go into some “soul searching,” if they have one. Because the crux of Stewarts problems is:
“You tout yourselves as experts and the channel to watch to know what’s going on, but you guys don’t know shit and you’re part of the problem.”
Which, for the most part, is EXACTLY the problem of CNBC.
So, good luck with all that NBC….
March 13th, 2009 at 9:38 am
….This was never going to be a mud wrestle for godsake…..Cramer mitigated the damage against himself by pleading guilty to most charges……Stewart did a superb job……A bit satirical but speaking for the common man in lots of ways…….The loser in this was CNBC whose reputation took another ding……I dont’ think this is over……..CC will be monitoring CNBC for other stuff and will use it….Plus the fact they have other seams to mine…….Kudlow who is at least as bad as Kramer has never really been hammered….Speaking of hammering I saw John Thain walking rather aimlessly down 5th yesterday….no security presence as far as I could see which rather surprised me given how popular this guy is.
March 13th, 2009 at 9:39 am
Dan wrote:
“Why are people so obsessed with CNBC? If you don’t like it, then turn the channel: Render it unto irrelevance and oblivion by ending the incessant play-by-play of what Kudlow said, or Cramer, etc., etc.”
This and the rest, good comments. It is about ratings after-all to CNBC.
March 13th, 2009 at 9:40 am
I thought Stewart would be lame and just joke about the controversy, instead he stayed focused and delivered a consistent message during the entire show. A message he’s had to all networks (build up to the war in Iraq), for journalists to be investigating, take responsibility and be accountable for their reporting. Stewart could have spend hours pointing out ethical issues at CNBC and especially the snake oils salesmen they consistently put on the show. With all the information we have today, why not call them out for the BS they sell. I do appreciate that Cramer did respond to the issues (the deck was stacked against him). I could easily see numerous TV personalities turn this into a screaming match and be completely in denial.
March 13th, 2009 at 9:41 am
…..Sorry Cramer…..Kramer’s the other madman.
March 13th, 2009 at 9:42 am
I don’t care much for Stewert given his reliance on snark and uninformed outrage on issues but Cramer is just awful and why any respected business network would give him (and Crudblow) a platform is beyond me.
CNBC wanted to be the ESPN of financial markets which is half about sports and the rest of it rather trite analysis. They jam far too much into short segments and allow far too many morons on their to promote stock buying.
Lastly, the Repubs are the opposition party so if the Democrats are the one driving policy then the Republicans should be the ones offering counters. OTOH, neither party has been good on spending. The dems campaigned for fiscal restraint, PAYGO and restraint then completely threw that aside when they regained power. Anyone who believed that they would do anything but spend is a moron. Let’s hope the Repubs learn their lesson and return sufficiently chastened to enact real change instead of the lies and cheap sloganeering thrown about in 2007/2008.
March 13th, 2009 at 9:44 am
At least they run a disclaimer re Cramer’s recomendations representing his opinions and not those of CNBC. My big problem is they allow people like Kudlow and that little worm Kearnen to push their right wing agenda as “hosts” of a news show. If they want to put Kudlow on after the close, OK. But do not put him on in the morning and push him as a “host”. That’s disengenuous IMO.
March 13th, 2009 at 9:46 am
@Dan Duncan: You’re right. I should have switched to Bloomberg a long time ago. Now that I have I haven’t gone back to CNBC and won’t go back. People do have other options. I’m pretty happy with Bloomberg thus far.
March 13th, 2009 at 9:46 am
The interview wasn’t better because Cramer was clearly taken out of his comfort zone from the very beginning when Stewart started the interview with Cramer’s “self-incriminating” web videos – after that JC wasn’t himself. Especially as Cramer tried to defend himself bypointing out that he was only describing how others “do it on Wall St,” Stewart smacked him with two more clips where Cramer clearly talked from the first person perspective. Cramer clearly wasn’t ready to defend against that. Even though Cramer preaches “buy-and-homework”, he didn’t even mention it against Stewart’s “buy-and-hold” tirade.
Seriously, when someone runs on TV (even if it’s basic cable) a video that most people will think is clearly self-incriminating of him, how many of us would remain 100% calm and have a clear mind for a serious verbal combat with JS?
March 13th, 2009 at 9:47 am
madoff and cramer have a few things in common. for starters they had to know in the back of their mind that
“this day would come”
their shelf lives seem to be spoiling at the same time. how appropriate.
karma always has the last laugh – or wink.
March 13th, 2009 at 9:48 am
CNBC’s inability to ask guests what they’re selling instead of always asking what they’re buying. The selling insight would’ve been particularly valuable during the market downturn. Instead, by asking what to buy and when the bottom is in (i.e. The Vince Farrell bottom which got kicked around the Kudlow show for 6 months…) they did their viewers a disservice by missing the bigger picture. I hope their ratings are rewarded appropriately.
March 13th, 2009 at 9:49 am
There was little or no humor during the interview – the audience seldom laughed, and what laughter there was, was nervous. Jon Stewart, in spite of being the host of a “comedy” show, is highly credible as an investigative journalist. This fact alone speaks volumes on the state of journalism in America.
BR: While there were some weaknesses in the interview, I don’t see any of this type of direct confrontation of guests (supported by evidence) taking place on the other Pundit-fests or “news” shows currently on the air.
March 13th, 2009 at 9:50 am
I think you missed JS’s overarching theme (which may be a shortcoming of TDS more than anything):
The number of professional investors who – ex leverage – have outperformed the market over the long term is a very short list. In fact, statistically speaking, there’s a very strong argument to be made that next to no one/fund outperforms the market via anything other than what the normal distribution would predict (with a handful of notable exceptions; no we’re not rehashing EMH ever again. Never).
American Funds has $100mm set aside for research alone. Peter Lynch wrote that he left Magellan because it was literally killing him to do the analysis necessary to continue. Vanguard beats 80% of other funds while failing to match the underlying index’s performance. Consistently.
But CNBC says don’t worry about that: investing is so easy you can watch a bunch of floating heads shout at each other for five minutes, get on Scottrade, buy whatever it is we just stopped shouting about, and retire 20 years early. It’s not just bullshit; it’s crazy, reckless, ridiculous, how-do-they-get-away-with-it bullshit.
If CNBC wants to be a source for business news, that’s fine. I don’t come to TBP for stock market timing or picks from the comments section; I come for trenchant analysis of macro events that most of the MSM either gloss over or just don’t get. CNBC could be the same destination, but instead, it is profitable to dupe the gullible into believing they can get something for nothing (well, not exactly nothing. I guess the commercials are the cost), so that’s what CNBC does, and JS and TDS are finally calling out the network’s Grand Poobah for it.
March 13th, 2009 at 9:52 am
b_thunder Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 9:46 am
“. . . how many of us would remain 100% calm and have a clear mind for a serious verbal combat with JS?”
_______
I guess that depends on the level of criminality and the evidence presented.
March 13th, 2009 at 9:52 am
I think John Stewart needs to get Meredith Whitney on TDS. She’s a no BS kinda gal and has nothing to apologise for; she can speak directly to many of Stewart’s issues and it would be fun to see those two go mano-a-mano… errr… mano-a-mana?
March 13th, 2009 at 9:53 am
Otto, re John Thain walking aimlessly down 5th avenue. Nice to see he’s doing the same thing these days that he did at Merrill. Maybe he was windowshopping for decorating ideas.
I thought John Stewart was surgical last nite, operating on a patient that was obviously suffering from trauma.
March 13th, 2009 at 9:55 am
BR: While there were some weaknesses in the interview, I don’t see any of this type of direct confrontation of guests (supported by evidence) taking place on the other Pundit-fests or “news” shows currently on the air.
…….Don’t agree……It’s always happening on 60 minutes although they do do softball, usually with celeb profiles, and I’ve often seen Charlie Rose and Bill Moyers put pressure on people
March 13th, 2009 at 10:01 am
ottovbvs:
Charlie Rose interviewed Geithner a few nights ago. I have a feeling Stewart would have put a hurtin’ on his head. Rose didn’t, despite many opportunities to do so (after all – Geithner’s schtick is very weak, and could be challenged from many angles).
Moyers is another story, but his style is more documentary (like 60 minutes). I think few in power would subject themselves to a direct live interview with him.
March 13th, 2009 at 10:05 am
Larry Kudlow only allows people who agree with him to join onto his segments and when someone like Robert Reich disagrees with him , he drowns them out with free/market jingoism. The same holds true with Dennis Kneale, who told the watchers to ignore the events from 7/2007 to 12/2007 and pushed it as a momentary hiccup of a charging American & world market. Then in light of the events after Bear Stearns they again sounded the rally cries from 7/2008 to 12/2008 , oblivious to the destruction all americans were facing , and now they blame Obama for the market declines since 1/2009. Their transparent attempts to keep the middle class should be laid bare for all to see and I’ll bet you dollars for doughnuts that their personal equity assets were moved to cash as they were touting the Economy. Does anyone have the guts to call them out , no they don’t , because anyone who disputes them is “not invited back” !!!!!!!!!!!!
March 13th, 2009 at 10:10 am
Cramer’s 2006 interview was ill-advised. Back in 2001-2003 when there were just a handful of big hedge funds, I was the only analyst on the desk with one of the big funds. I suspected many of the other big funds of playing the sort of games that Cramer mentioned, but the traders would never talk about it in public.
March 13th, 2009 at 10:18 am
I’m not sure what to make of it when the hardest hitting interview on a US channel in regards to the financial crisis produced thus far is on Comedy Central, enough said.
March 13th, 2009 at 10:19 am
Barry, you’re right about the GOP tilt to the guest during the stimulus debate.
According to a survey done by Think Progress it was 2 to 1 Reps vs Dems. Of course that was the norm in all cable News and has been so since the mid 90’s.
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/updated_chart_2_3_09.jpg
March 13th, 2009 at 10:20 am
Kudlow only brings on the not-ready-for-TV Democrats, the less-attractive, misshapen, bad hair cut-types (present blog hosts excluded on all counts!)
Soon, be looking for a Kudlow segment limiting non-executive pay…
March 13th, 2009 at 10:25 am
Jon Stewart is no better than Cramer and the losers on CNBC .I emailed the link of Cramer telling how he MANIPULATED THE MARKET when he ran money to the Daily Show yesterday morning asking them to ask him about it
http://phoenixwoman.wordpress.com/2009/03/12/cramer-on-market-manipulation/
March 13th, 2009 at 10:28 am
It’s pretty easy being armchair judges. At the time Crammer pretty much thought what the rest of us thought… that the stock market would continue to go up.. up … up. Housing prices… would go up.. up… up. Common Sense SHEEPLE…
Crammer advice was free. Stewarts comedy show is free…
There are no free lunches. Basing your opinion on either idiot, one show… or one price of advice… without doing further research is going to lead yourself down the road of poverty. Remember the news is what happened… not what’s going to occur…
March 13th, 2009 at 10:29 am
Barry,
Maybe it wouldn’t seem so anticlimactic for you if you see the whole interview. They edited it down to less than 20 minutes and left out some of the best stuff. Check out the entire interview here:
http://blog.indecisionforever.com/2009/03/13/jon-stewart-and-jim-cramer-the-extended-daily-show-interview/
March 13th, 2009 at 10:31 am
“At the time Crammer pretty much thought what the rest of us thought… that the stock market would continue to go up.. up … up. Housing prices… would go up.. up… up.”
No, completely disagree. Lots knew it was BS, present company included.
March 13th, 2009 at 10:31 am
Barry says
“what seems like a hard right turn the channel has taken since the election”
While I hadn’t noticed a particular openess to “liberal” let alone “progressive” views before when Denis Neal, previously a Forbes editor, is the only one uttering an occasionally more moderate comment you know that you are in trouble.
CNBC I think gives the lie to the notion of objective journalism, only objective in putting out the extreme capitalist line. While they can attempt to appear balanced when they feel in control, this more ranting and strident version appears to indicate that they feel somewhat threatened. Unfortunately we have few other sources of information. Bloomberg while somewhat more balanced hardly entertains ideas from the left as its ownership would imply. We are very much disserved by the discussion of business and economics on the media which is one of the many reasons contributing to the current crisis and decline of America.
SS
March 13th, 2009 at 10:37 am
I think Cramer had a great point, though: 50.7% of this nation voted in favor of Bushonomics in 2004. They loved it when the market was going up up up, when their home values were going through the roof. They ignored John Kerry when he said we can’t have an upside down economy where workers get poorer and the rich get richer. They did more than ignore him–they laughed at him. And now that we’re seeing the natural result of that ideology (that which produces booms also produces busts), people are looking for scapegoats.
Sure, there are people who are directly, criminally responsible for what has happened. But 50.7% of this country is an accessory to the crimes of Wall Street and its traitors. I fear that we haven’t suffered enough to really repudiate the ideologies that got us in this mess. It happened during the Great Depression, but when I see large segments of American society claiming this mess was all caused by a few Wall Street traitors working with “colored” homebuyers who don’t deserve to be in the middle class, I fear for my country.
March 13th, 2009 at 10:45 am
I think the problem is pretty simple…the network is paid by advertising fees by the same people who have proven to be dishonest…we who own the money in the retirement funds don’t buy the advertising…
There are no 60 Minute type spots on CNBC…no real time stories about possible fraud…anything that is exposed by Faber or one of the other announcers is in retrospect…
…perhaps a disclaimer in the lead of every CNBC program would be appropriate…
“This program is for entertainment only and taking any advice offered in the next 60 minutes could lead to significant losses..”
March 13th, 2009 at 11:01 am
jskeelz Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 9:31 am
My personal pet peeve w/ CNBC is that whenever they actually manage to ask a question of someone that I want to know the answer to, inevitably just as the guest is about to answer, the big “Breaking News” banner comes scrolling across the screen, the anchor interrupts the guest, we cut to something stupid that everyone knows already, and the guest is gone forever.
Are you sure that it’s not intentional?
March 13th, 2009 at 11:07 am
Stewart’s outrage is that he expects journalist to ask questions and independently confirm responses. He believes that a journalist has an independent obligation to people–they are the watchdogs of the truth. I saw him do an interview with a few pundints from hard ball or I’ll kick your ass, or whatever show, during the Bush and Gore campaigns. The problem is that real journalism is dead and even if it were not, CNBC is not about presenting the news. Its about ratings. The problem is that most people believe what they see and hear on TV.
March 13th, 2009 at 11:12 am
Shame on you Barry! The video clips trotted out by Stewart show Cramer in unethical and probably criminal acts of stock manipulation. You, Barry, probably know what we all suspect. This is just the tip of the iceberg slamming into the CNBC Titantic.
Just because CNBC butters parts of your proverbial bread is not reason enough to kow-tow to a stock manipulator or a network of folks in bed, both literally and figurateively, with a financial industry so rotted with incometence, malfeasance, and manipulation that we are all now suffering collectively through what will likely be viewed in retrospect as a second Great Depression.
You’re better than than Barry. Show some cojones and call it for what it is. Even if they are friends of yours.
~~~
BR: I ran that clip here 2 years ago. To his credit, Cramer was revealing what was going on, and no one else was discussing. I thought it was risky of him to say what he did.
You missed it? Don’t blame me — I beat TDS & Stewart by 24 months.
As to CNBC buttering my bread, I seem to fall off the preferred list every few months. Haven’t been on Kudlow since May 2008. I say what I say and let the chips fall where they may. If you haven’t figured that out, you haven’t been reading here for very long…
March 13th, 2009 at 11:16 am
> the network is paid by advertising fees by the same people who have proven to be dishonest…
@Bruce:
I absolutely agree with you about the advertisers. I’d actually feel better if the ads were mostly for beer, tampons, and ED tablets, instead of mutual fund and brokerage houses. I guess it’s not a surprise that most TV people are whores, but CNBC is the worst offender. I see CNBC purely as entertainment. Any “advice” is certainly tainted.
I wish the hosts called out guests on their bad calls more often. That’s one good segment that sometimes shows on ‘Fast Money.’ We need guests saying more often “My call to BUY BUY BUY at Dow 14,000 was f***ked. I am such a conflicted a-hole.”
One can only dream…
HCF
March 13th, 2009 at 11:16 am
That was it! You just witnessed THE TOP. Write that down the top is in and is gone. Hope you unloaded.
disclaimer: this is purely one idiots sarcasm. I have no idea what I am doing. All my analysis is based on how many hours of sleep I had last night.
March 13th, 2009 at 11:17 am
Jon Stewart completely missed the mark on his characterization of Rick Santelli and CNBC. Rick has always ranted against the kind of crazy bull that happens on that show. And many people feel that we don’t want to subsidize the loser’s mortgages. Besides, NOTHING in Rick’s rant was out of character for him.
Basically, Jon Stewart and the writers at TDS are mad that someone on CNBC would oppose a bailout for “the little guy”, regardless of the facts that the speaker (Rick Santelli) been consistently against bailouts and the fact that such a bailout wouldn’t do anything to help the country.
If TDS really wanted to be serious, they’d redo the interview with Alan Greenspan and nail him to the wall with his promotion of ARM mortgages and slashing the interest rate to very low levels. Instead they’re interviewing clowns like Cramer.
Stewart captured the appropriate general outrage, but he’s directing it at all the wrong issues and players.
March 13th, 2009 at 11:30 am
Jon Stewart is one of a a few TV personalities, as opposed to journalists, who can conduct a decent interview. He does a good job of striking a balance between asking hard questions and allowing the other person to speak their mind. He doesn’t always get the answers one might want to hear, but he usually gets his point across without browbeating the interviewee. Stewart did point out that the long term investment strategy (buy and hold) was consistently sold to the public (i.e. retirement fund investors) while CNBC and Jim Cramer were quite aware of the short-term market manipulation games which diminished the effectiveness of that strategy.
I don’t believe that Jon Stewart takes himself too seriously (unlike some other MSNBC personalities I can name). He has a fine sense of irony as it relates to the human condition, which is what makes his shtick funny to me. We need people in society who have a talent for poking fun at our human foibles. Everyone thought after Obama was elected that he wouldn’t have anything funny to talk about. He has done some pretty funny shows poking fun at the “Obama Messiah” complex as well as Obama’s speaking style.
March 13th, 2009 at 11:35 am
Marcus Aurelius Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 10:01 am
ottovbvs:
Charlie Rose interviewed Geithner a few nights ago. I have a feeling Stewart would have put a hurtin’ on his head. Rose didn’t, despite many opportunities to do so (after all – Geithner’s schtick is very weak, and could be challenged from many angles).
…….Actually I watched the Rose Geithner interview and thought it quite good. Geithner came across as exactly what he is: a thoughtful and highly intelligent Wonk/Technocrat. Since you’ve been telling us for weeks you think Geithner is a dope, you could perhaps be supposed to be a bit biassed. The mere fact you think there’s any comparability between how you interview the SoT and a chair throwing stock pusher alone suggests a certain lack of proportion.
March 13th, 2009 at 11:37 am
John Stewart is scoring some cheap points on Cramer and…anyone stupid enough to base their investment portfolio on what Cramer and CNBC says deserves to lose all their money, Cramer has advocated hundreds of times to do your homework….
Stewart is trying to make it seem like if only the media was more truthful somehow we’d be living in fantasy world where investments would only go up….
March 13th, 2009 at 11:39 am
While not a regular viewer of the TDS – it is my understanding that Stewart hosts a show that generally makes people LAUGH when highlighting current events.
If the genuine OUTRAGE that Stewart displayed represents the general public’s attitude towards stocks (and I sense that it does)….a lot of these people aren’t coming back to the stock market – ever.
March 13th, 2009 at 11:43 am
All this discussion and sharing of perspectives seems extremely healthy. As I got over the discomfort of the Cramer vivisection, it struck me that one thing recoverable was Stewart voicing an invitation to Cramer to do what he does better. We all need to be urged to do better. At least we are recovering our ability and willingness to engage in difficult dialogue. The Bush pall thins, and the fetid stink of Cheney fades. (that’s a little chum-feeling sporty today)
DDuncan’s pointing out that the outrage is fueled in part by a pleasure principle seems correct to me despite the displeasure I experience in recognizing that.
Masochism: do unto yourself what others probably want to do you.
March 13th, 2009 at 11:46 am
@dclancy1830: “Cheap points?” What are you talking about, pray tell? I think you’re missing Stewart’s entire point, which is instead of being a cheerleader for the markets and corporate CEO’s, Cramer and CNBC should have been a little more diligent in investigating and reporting the real truth. Joe Retail Investor can do all the “homework” in the world and that wouldn’t guard against the outright fraud and criminality that has occurred. How does someone guard against that? Answer: By not coming back to the markets any time soon until that changes. That’s what we’re seeing and will see until the rottenness is purged from the system.
March 13th, 2009 at 11:47 am
the unedited interview is more informative than what aired on TDS:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=221516&title=jim-cramer-unedited-interview
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=221517&title=jim-cramer-unedited-interview
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=221518&title=jim-cramer-unedited-interview
enjoy!
March 13th, 2009 at 11:47 am
Thanks to BR for posting.
I’m a moderate conservative, but I have to say that very liberal Stewart’s criticism was well focused, timely, and accurate. To his credit, he wasn’t making jokes but engaging in an intellectual discussion. It was one of the better exposes I have seen in quite awhile.
March 13th, 2009 at 11:48 am
Marcus A said:
“There was little or no humor during the interview – the audience seldom laughed, and what laughter there was, was nervous. Jon Stewart, in spite of being the host of a “comedy” show, is highly credible as an investigative journalist. This fact alone speaks volumes on the state of journalism in America.
BR: While there were some weaknesses in the interview, I don’t see any of this type of direct confrontation of guests (supported by evidence) taking place on the other Pundit-fests or “news” shows currently on the air.”
—-
This absolutely hits the nail on the head. Stewart runs a damn comedy show, it is not his job to uncover this sort of behavior and shine a light on it. That is the journalists’ job, which they have abdicated in such totality that only the comedians are left to point that the emperor has no clothes. John Stewart wants to make fart noises, dick jokes, and get a few laughs with some snark. That the guy is a human being with diginity and respect for journalism and truth is the only reason he ventures out to do this sort of thing (with Cramer or the MSM at large.) As pointed out earlier, why the hell isn’t Charlie Rose, 60 minutes, or any of our other news sources not climbing all over CNBC (or every breaching the subject) of how damn off the mark they are?
I would say rather what we witnessed the other night was a volley from the netroots across the bow of the MSM. Stewart is very keyed into this world, the distaste and anger for the state of journalism is plain to see if you cruise the blogosphere for even a single afternoon (right or left, take your pick.) Cramer showed up to play pattycake and make nice to uphold the status quo of “news reporting”, Stewart showed up not to honor Caesar, but to bury him. I think the anger was more directed at the MSM and Cramer was just the biggest fish Stewart could net and hold down for the beating. In other words, this was a proxy fight with the lefty populist anger backing Stewart and Cramer standing in for the MSM. Would Stewarts’ questions really have been that different if it had been Rupert Murdock sitting across from him instead of Cramer (and he substituted “run up to Iraq reporting” for “run up to the depression reporting”?)
This has been brewing for a long time, I suspect this is just the second skirmish of a brewing info war. The first being Stewart’s challenge to the status quo on Crossfire a few years back. There are other warriors on the left gearing up for this conflict, if a little more slowly and deliberately. Check out Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow. Those two aren’t calling out their MSM brethen yet (because well, they might want to someday have another job if their shows are ever cancelled) but really they are the only ones I see giving the news a “sniff test” before they air it. As they gain viewers, they gain confidence, IMHO it is only a matter of time before they are calling other reporters to the mat for wonky reporting. Actually, they are doing it now with O’Reilly, Limbaugh, and FOX news; sharpening their knives on the worst offenders. What happens if they turned that focus on 60 minutes or the WSJ?
Interesting times. I applaud John Stewart, if nothing else he is a catalyst for what was coming anyway.
March 13th, 2009 at 11:51 am
Right on, zot23. Right on indeed.
March 13th, 2009 at 11:58 am
With all due respect BR, while CNBC has a redeeming quality or two, calling it “so well worth-while” is a stretch, a big stretch. While the occasional nuggets from yourself, Fleckstein, Battapaglia, Swonk et al are worth Tivo-ing and fast forwarding thru the bullshit to get to them, the regulars from Kernan to Cramer to Kudlow are a waste of air time, or worse. Hell, even when CNBC deigns to give some exposure to someone with a clue, they are subjugated to Ratigan’s ego and the snide asides to his Guy-friend (“You’re beautiful man!)… and was that Anne Coulter guest hosting Squawk Box the other day? ‘Nuff said!
March 13th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Steward did better than expected. Cramer looked like the manchild that he is.
As for CNBC, it’s a joke but no worse than Bloomberg or FOX Business. No one in the media is doing their jobs. The media is more powerful than the SEC and NFA wrapped together. I real media could have stopped our current crisis in its tracks long before some bureaucracy could ever dream of.
You want to blame someone??? Start with the media because they are the ones that helped Wall Street and Washington hop in bed with us and screw us since Nixon was in office….
March 13th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
BR,
you summed it best by noting:
“There’s a lot more, but I have other things to do . . .”
March 13th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Mark, agree fully, but this is a very important issue Stewart is actively exposing, on so many levels, and deserved of its time in the spotlight for now, if for anything, for some dolt in the MSM to then pick it up and run with it.
March 13th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Stewart became Cramer’s bitch by giving him publicity.
Disgusting.
Stupid stupid move John Stewart
When are the gonna lock that conman up?
March 13th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Stuart,
Bob A hits close to the mark.
Stewart accomplishes little more giving Cramer an additional outlet..
it’s telling that Santelli, who was held out as ’starting this’, wasn’t offered to appear, though Cramer was..
Santelli would have told, too much of, the truth of the matter..
we should remember that Sociopaths evince themselves in other ways than by ‘eating one’s Liver’
Past all that, if Cramer was the worst of our ills, we’d be blessed..
March 13th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Most investment pros follow CNBC on mute with the cc scrolling. We don’t watch it; we’re too busy watching the market, talking to clients, holding on to what we’ve got and looking for new ideas and business. “Main Street” viewers are probably so damned angry with Wall Street, they just get angrier watching most of the coverage. Certainly Main Street has good reason to be upset.
There is a huge difference between, (as Cramer said on Stewart,) filling 17 hours of live programming and real analysis and accurate information. Most investment pros know that companies never talk about serious internal issues. We also know that many “talking heads” are indeed talking their books. It seems the unspoken truth is networks like CNBC have to allow this, otherwise they wouldn’t have anyone on the air. If certain tough questions were asked of Dimon, Lewis, etc. that would be the last time those ceo’s would appear. Heck you can barely get them to talk now, and they’re controlling these appearances carefully.
The next point is that investment pros also understand how to frame the fast talking lingo of The Street. We also know there are numerous examples of bankers, funds, economists, etc. who provide valuable information. At the same time there are other players who sound the same, talk the same, are appealing, yet they are dangerously wrong. Worse still are those who make four valid points, and miss the conclusion. (Invariably, the conclusion is to be long something they already have a position in, or they’re defending a position against negative conditions.)
As for the overall tenor of CNBC, it has changed. Squawk Box was a terrific franchise. But when they lost Mark Haines, and Faber, and decided to make the show “edgier” they blew the franchise. For many this show is one of the few that’s actually watched. Yet the viewers are subjected to shameless audio and movie clips and obvious plugs. The low point for me was a few weeks ago when on a tremendously important news day the Squawk Box co-host was Ivanka Trump…because NBC was airing the dreadful Apprentice redux. Please, that was an insult.
The pendulum needs to swing back. These days are too important for foolishness. Trillions are at stake. GE, C, GM, AIG, BAC, FNM/FRE, Treasuries, the federal budget, (someone stop me…) For what its worth, most serious investment pros also watch the other CNBC feeds. You don’t get silly programming out of Asia or Europe.
ABC Nightline was born out of the Iranian hostage crisis. Back then, the media was smart to understand a need and they filled it with smart, straight, accurate reporting. Today, what kills me is with all the time devoted to covering complex financial issues, CNBC is always saying….”we’ve got to go,” “we’ve got to get out.” Where are they going? What could be more important?
Here’s an idea…The current problem are toxic assets in the form of RMBS, CMBS, student loans, credit card loans and other securitizations. These toxic securities threaten to bring down the US, Europe and therefore the global economic and banking system. How about CNBC stop all its foolish programming, stay on this one topic, not cut to sports promos, lifestyle pieces and other silly fluff. Stay on the air, through all the time zones and talk this problem out till its fixed.
Rather than Santelli ranting about something most of us already knew, CNBC, and others, need to start to think in terms of being the solution rather than another part of the problem.
I’ve actually floated this idea to media and market players…indeed even to you Barry…and people think I’m nuts. I’m just getting tired of watching smart people engage in foolish debates, while the global crisis gets worse. Yes, this is THE war we are not winning, and our current policy seems to be, muddle through by taxing, spending, borrowing and printing. Do readers of this blog and most viewers of CNBC and Bloomberg really think this is going to work?
March 13th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Why Jon Stewart Really Attacked Jim Cramer
March 13, 2009 10:58 AM ET | Pethokoukis, James | Permanent Link
There was a lively exchange last night on The Daily Show between Jon Stewart and CNBC’s Jim Cramer, in which Stewart hammered Cramer and the network for being subservient to Wall Street and not alerting viewers to the coming meltdown. Cramer and the network can defend themselves, but what became clear to me is that Stewart really doesn’t believe in the idea of a stock market where individuals can go to invest their money and build wealth over the long term. This, I think, is a revealing quote:
Isn’t that part of the problem, selling this idea that you don’t have to do anything? Anytime you sell people the idea that, sit back and you’ll get 10 to 20 percent on your money, don’t you always know that that’s going to be a lie. When are we going to realize in this country that are wealth is work, that we’re workers.
Me: So what is Stewart suggesting, that we “workers” just save insane gobs of money that we squirrel away into low-yielding savings accounts and rely on those savings and Social Security for our retirement? The only reason to do that is if you don’t believe in the long-run soundness of the American economy. And if the American economy isn’t dynamic over the long run, don’t expect Social Security or Medicare to meet their meager promises.
Americans need to be building asset wealth, they need to think of themselves as “investors” and not just workers. Even plenty of Democrats believe that, which is why many are pushing universal savings accounts. Now, of course, investors tend to be more conservative than folks without investment portfolios. So maybe that is what really bugs the liberal Stewart, as well as those Dems who want to get rid of 401(k) plans.
As I wrote recently:
In short, save the stock market, save the world. Indeed, while Americans should reduce their debt and save more, a good chunk of that savings needs to go into wealth-building assets. And by that I mean stocks and bonds. Obama needs to rekindle America’s love affair with investing. Indeed, this could be a once-in-a-generation opportunity to let people invest some of their payroll taxes into the stock market. Buy low, sell high. Indeed, even many of left-of-center analysts contend that unless Rising Asia becomes Disappearing Asia, excess global labor supply will continue to push down hard on wages. Families have to earn income from assets as well as a job. Free-marketeers prefer Social Security privatization, while liberal might be more comfortable with government financed “baby bonds” for kiddies.
March 13th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
I thought Stewart was amazing. I felt kinda sorry for Cramer, who in my mind is not the worst in the CNBC stable. Glad to see that I am not the only one who has noticed the “hard right” turn of the network since the election. And yes, it did go on all day. So much so, I’ve switching more and more to Bloomberg. There are some great people on CNBC, that I like. But you never know when they will go off on their anti-Obama rant, either themselves or with their guests. It is not worth the heartburn to try and sort out the quality from the junk.
It will be interesting to see how they react to Stewart. This morning I caught Erin trying to defend herself as not being one of those that said Obama was making war on Wall Street.
March 13th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
ottovbvs Says:
“Since you’ve been telling us for weeks you think Geithner is a dope, you could perhaps be supposed to be a bit biassed. The mere fact you think there’s any comparability between how you interview the SoT and a chair throwing stock pusher alone suggests a certain lack of proportion.”
____
I don’t typically voice an opinion of Geithner here (maybe I’ve mentioned him once or twice, if he was the topic of the post, but it certainly isn’t something I’ve posted repeatedly, regularly, or at length about). I haven’t “been telling us for weeks you think Geithner is a dope”.
Maybe you have me confused with someone else. Maybe not. If you’d like to offer up a samples of any such comments, I’ve posted “for weeks” I invite you to do it. Otherwise, you should check your facts. Until you do, I’d suggest you stick a sock in it.
BTW: You interview everyone the same way – you don’t kowtow or show deference to anyone. That would show integrity. How would you do it?
March 13th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
James Pethokoukis Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
……..Well since investment predictions from Mr Pethokoukis going back over the past couple years have been on a par with Cramer’s and his objectivity is positively Kudlowesque I can see why he might consider Cramer a kindred spirit……Stewart certainly never attacked investing or stock markets…..He’s just pointing out that viewers of CNBC deserve more than the dreck that he catalogued in such exquisite detail…..It’s ironic that Stewart a comedian is having to do the journalistic work of alleged financial journalists like Mr Pethokoukis.
March 13th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
@otto: March 13th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
……..Well since investment predictions from Mr Pethokoukis going back over the past couple years have been on a par with Cramer’s and his objectivity is positively Kudlowesque I can see why he might consider Cramer a kindred spirit……Stewart certainly never attacked investing or stock markets…..He’s just pointing out that viewers of CNBC deserve more than the dreck that he catalogued in such exquisite detail…..It’s ironic that Stewart a comedian is having to do the journalistic work of alleged financial journalists like Mr Pethokoukis.
You stole my thunder. Nothing more to say on that topic.
March 13th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
“It feels like we are capitalizing your adventure”
For me this was the key revelation of the interview. The emperor has no clothes and the defined contribution retirement plan was the biggest fraud ever perpetrated. Generations of people bought into a market dogma that was preached by the likes of “entertainers” like Cramer and so called financial journalists. Think about all that capital flowing into the market every pay period whether or not there were opportunities. All those taxes not paid. All those credit balances growing for want of the money being “invested” for retirement.
March 13th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
I don’t typically voice an opinion of Geithner here (maybe I’ve mentioned him once or twice, if he was the topic of the post,
…….With due respect you’ve dissed Geithner and his efforts several times
BTW: You interview everyone the same way – you don’t kowtow or show deference to anyone.
……Maybe I’m old fashioned but yes I do think you show more deference to say the SoS or Sot than Kinky Friedman.
March 13th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
CESPNBC,
It was the biggest house party ever. You promoted the party, you got to hang out with the cool kids, you drank a lot of the booze, you hooked up. There were so many people there you figured “so what if they trash the place” after all, there was a cover to get in. Well, it’s the next morning, everyone is gone, the place is trashed, a lot of those people who showed up didn’t pay, you have a massive hang over, an STD and the house belongs to a loan shark your father owes your college tuition to. Your reaction? “Who’s gonna throw the next party to pay for this?”
Also, you can’t cheerlead throughout the boom times then turn into a partisan critic of a less than two month old administration that is trying to clean up the profound and historic mess left in its wake it, the approach has no merit. From what I’ve seen, you have handled this period in our history in a self-indulgent and counter productive manner. But I’ve seen it because I know that you can provide vital and informative stuff. Try to emphasize that, we’ll all be better off.
I know you’re a business and I know you’ve got Fox Business in your rear-view mirror. But the nature of Santelli’s rant, calling out the President and referring to a large group of Americans as “losers”, and Cramer’s show, with the gimmicks and props are indicative of the network’s static approach to what is happening to our country and the world at large. The world is changing, rapidly. We’ve seen ratings driven, attention seeking “entertainment” and antics dominate a number of providers of political and financial information for some time now. On the surface, it’s loud nonsense but it becomes more and more detrimental the longer and more frequently it is applied. The main purpose of Stewart and TDS is to provide entertainment and antics but, more and more, they’ve had to fill the information vacuum. I’d like to thank them for doing so and making me laugh along the way. CESPNBC, do you even know what you purpose is anymore?
March 13th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
There’s a fundamental naivete in many of the comments about CNBC that I find troubling, especially on a blog that is focused on business and the economy.
CNBC is a for-profit venture. It is built on an advertising model – attract viewers with certain demographic characteristics, and sell their viewership to advertisers that might want to reach them.
I love Jon Stewart, don’t get me wrong, but he knows this. Where does he get off telling CNBC to change their programming angle? CNBC identified a slice of viewers that is attractive to advertisers, and programmed content accordingly.
At the 30,000 foot level, the problems people have with media are the same ones they have with Wall Street – they don’t understand the incentive structure. If you want to reform either media or Wall Street, you have to talk about the incentive structure. In the case of Wall Street, there are obvious areas for improvement. In media, what’s the alternative to advertiser-supported models?
March 13th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
otto,
you go w/: “…….With due respect you’ve dissed Geithner and his efforts several times”
in response to: “If you’d like to offer up a samples of any such comments, I’ve posted “for weeks” I invite you to do it. Otherwise, you should check your facts.”–MA
some ‘people’ are, just, too obvious..
March 13th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
CNBC has been called out for the corporate shill that it is. They are part of NBC who relies upon the same corporations they cover for business news to provide them with advertising dollars, so the conflicts of interest will continue to ensure that CNBC will provide corporations with an outlet that shines their apples, rather than pointing out how rotten they are, and how rotten the entire apple tree that produces them are. They remind me of the cartoon that shows the last people rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic as she sank.
The anchors, the guest hosts and pundits have a right wing bias; they continually use GOP generated talking points to counter anything that reflects poorly on the right wing pro-business agenda. Unions, bad. Obama, socialist, bad, failure? Democrats, ridicule. Conservatives, praise, success! McCain, too old, praise, success! Tax cuts for the middle class, ridicule, class warfare, bad. Tax cuts for the wealthy, (which includes every single person on that fucking show) solution to all that ails us, very, very good. Rinse, repeat.
We can call them on their conflicts of interest, their hypocrisy, their whoredom, the fact remains that they aren’t even the tiniest bit ashamed of their programming, in fact, they send poor little Cramer out there to take the heat as he already is viewed as an idiot whom no one respects, regardless.
What we needed to see is a grilling of Kudlow, Kernan, Cabrera, Santelli, etc., who cannot defend themselves from the charges of hypocrisy, corporatism and self centered greed. Let’s have them show a little bubble above their heads that contains their current salary from CNBC, so that we can judge if these are the people who have a conflict of interest with their CNBC rantings.
In the end nothing will change for CNBC or Cramer. Stewart showed us the seamy under belly of what passes for “unbiased” financial reporting, and buyers should simply beware. CNBC will continue to showcase CEO’s who lie about their companies, analysts who talk up their book, and various right wing pundits who push the corporatist agenda. Nothing more to see here, move along now….
March 13th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
@ franklin411
So, if the Obama administration ends poorly and causes further pain do we tell the 54% that voted for him that they are to blame? Ridiculus point- but in your case I guess you will never have a quandry as to who to point your finger at.
March 13th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Great publicity stunt by the TDS. It certainly has populist appeal to villify the nation’s original financial news network, and by extention wall street, AFTER Americans have lost half their wealth in declining stock and housing values.
I hate defending CNBC, but I know with certainty they started to interview people about a potential housing bubble developing as far back as early 2004. I can recall the approximate date because I was with a firm that had been aggressively buying homebuilder stocks. So when CNBC started trotting out people talking about the potential for a housing bubble developing, it generated alot of discussion among my colleagues. I resigned from that firm in early 2004, so I know for sure they were bringing up the topic since early 2004, if not earlier.
I wonder why Stewart’s crack staff couldn’t locate any of those videos?
March 13th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
“Stewart became Cramer’s bitch by giving him publicity.”
Disagree totally given the amount of publciity Cramer already gets. This additional publicity was pissing in an ocean especially was it reinforced such a negative image.
March 13th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
The first victim of Cramer’s wrath:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123695087429819343.html
March 13th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
@ douglasbtrain @ 1:11 pm
“…the defined contribution retirement plan was the biggest fraud ever perpetrated…
Think about all that capital flowing into the market every pay period whether or not there were opportunities. All those taxes not paid. All those credit balances growing for want of the money being “invested” for retirement.”
I currently have a 401(k) plan and take maximum advantage of it, dumping as much of my gross salary into it as possible to reap the tax savings and the generous employer matching contribution. I don’t have “credit balances growing” and live within or below my means. With the limited investment options available within the plan, for now the investment consists of cash and Treasury funds. When (finally) the market turns, there will be investment opportunities even within the limited plan options. These are all investment choices available by virtue of defined contribution plan.
So where exactly is the fraud?
March 13th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
I think stewart really ran circles around cramer, but he really threw some unfair jabs… ie. saying “this is about you” but he kept talking about cramer when attacking cnbc. Anyway, can anyone explain the cramer 2007 interview? I’m assuming he was exaggerating.. why hasn’t anyone here even mentioned that vid?
March 13th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Jon Stewart’s interview of Cramer was brilliant. He spoke the truth that no other Big Media outlet has – why didn’t anyone question the 2004 Rule Change to increase Leveraged Debt to ridiculous amounts?
Why didn’t any financial or news media ask if leveraged debt of 35:1 was too much, too scary, too Risky? Or just plain wrong – Pure Gambling – that still goes unpunished today.
Why didn’t we see any huge banner headline that said Paulson requested huge Debt increase and is hugely responsible for financial markets catastrophe.
Jon Stewart did what few others (except here) would do – question Why so many financial “experts” or just “pundits” acted so optimistically dumb while many on Wall Street tanked the economy.
March 13th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
I think Jon Stewart did a good job highlighting the anger of average Americans to the hubris and arrogance of Wall Street and Wall Street’s biggest cheerleader CNBC.
However I agree with Barry, he really could have exposed the complete lack of accountability with people like Dennis Kneal but more importantly with Krudlow the Clown and his gaggle of sneering pitbulls, all which have been completely discredited with their horrible calls over the last 18 months, I’m thinking mainly of Luskin, Wesbury and Bowyer.
Surprisingly (or not) the same people who got everything wrong get invited back to tell us all what to do now. I see Krudlow has decided to trot out Dick Bove in recent weeks to tell us all is well with the banks, the same guy who told us to buy Citi at $30 and said the credit crunch was over a year ago.
March 13th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Barry, I registered specifically so that I could post this. You are being hypocritical. There are SO MANY missed opportunities you’ve had when you’ve appeared on CNBC. You never counter these blowhards with the same facts you present here. Sometimes I can’t believe that the insightful, critical commentary I find here is written by the same man I see on TV. Do you have a ghost writer? It’s funny how you mention accountability of those appearing on the network, when YOU are one of those people! One thing that Jon Stewart has that every pundit fails to do: research. It is the lifeblood of truth.
~~~
BR: First off, that’s not what TV is for. As a guest, you try to do your best to make a few points, and then its over. Hopefully, when you are done, you didn’t shit the bed, and no one came away thinking “WHAT AN ASSHOLE.”
Second, its LIVE TV. You have 2 or 3 minutes to say what you are going to say, under pressure and hostile fire, in 20-30 second snippets. Its easy to Monday morning QB. Let’s see how you perform under those conditions.
LOL Amazing, everyone’s a friggin critic.
March 13th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
A little parody
Full version here:
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/03/societys-only-protection/
March 13th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
logline Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
…….There is I fear some truth in this…..I commented here several times when you popped up on Kudlow’s show about the extent you were playing his game…..I realize why you were playing his game and let him that without sin cast the first stone etc…..but this poster does have a point
dhukka Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
However I agree with Barry, he really could have exposed the complete lack of accountability with people like Dennis Kneal…
………This is being a bit unrealistic, Stewart had a brief tv show to cover as much ground as he could…..While Kneale, Kudlow, Luskin and co are undoubtedly culpable Stewart wasnt running the Nuremburg trials here….He got the point across…..And I don’t think we’ve heard the last of this.
March 13th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
batmando,
The fraud occurs when a 401k participant is told that their 401k plan is a retirement plan. A 401k is actually a deferred compensation plan wherein the employer benefits by lowering their tax liability and the brokerage get’s its hands on some of the employees money. Where does that leave the employee? With less money in their paycheck. If the employee changes his mind, then he pays a penalty and taxes. Sounds like fraud. The employee was deceived into thinking that he was purchasing a retirement plan while the other two parties benefit. But hey, they showed you the fine print that your account could go to zero. Wait, my plan to retire might not happen? I thought I was buying into a retirement plan? No matter what happens, the employer and the brokerage win. And the benefit to the employee is completely contingent upon earnings of the money that would have been taxed, all of which will be taxed an unknown future rate. This benefit of earnings on deferred taxes also gets smaller the closer one gets to 59.5.
This is not to say that all plans are bad and that no one should use a 401k. But for most people they simple don’t do what participants think they are going to do. Just look at the average account balances. It’s never going to work. Never going to provide a steady cash flow in retirement. Never going to come close to the pension received by the average school teacher. A 401k might be a nice part of the mix, but it’s not a retirement plan.
As far as the comment about credit cards, there are plenty of people who eventually pay the penalty to access their 401k money in order to pay off credit cards. It’s my opinion that they would have been better off paying their taxes and improving their cash flow rather than funding a 401k while building high cost debt.
March 13th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
“Amazing, everyone’s a friggin critic.”
….Chill out Barry that’s what everyone including you does here…I’m laughing…Unfortunately Marcia’s little parody has more than a grain of truth in it at least in a journalistic sense.
~~~
BR: I’m just saying its harder than it looks.
Maybe Monday morning QB is a better phrase . . .
March 13th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
30:1 Leverage Ratio is the problem?
What exactly is the leverage ratio on a zero-percent-down adjustable rate mortgage?
March 13th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
douglasbtrain Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
…..I think the 401k program is increasingly being recognized as a failure…..There are all sorts of reasons for it….incapacity of participants…..loads…..timing….but as a vehicle to provide for retirement it has in a general sense proved a very shaky reed……I suspect it’s days are numbered at least in the present form…..At least it’s served one purpose……..to enable conservatives to claim half of Americans “own” stocks…….they usually neglect to mention 70% of these plans have less than 50k in them so the stocks owned is fairly puny but it’s a handy fiction.
March 13th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
CNBC Under Fire: Sticking Up for the Big Guy?
March 13th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
A little OT, from Nocera’s column in the NYTimes today. Amazingly, some Madoff victims lost their money before in another Ponzi Scheme. That is simply incredible……
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/14/business/14nocera.html?pagewanted=2&hp
“Late Thursday afternoon, I called Richard C. Breeden, the former chairman of the S.E.C. who had recently served as a trustee to get money back for investors who had been involved in a billion-dollar Ponzi scheme that was uncovered more than a decade ago. He had miraculously been able to pay investors close to 60 cents on the dollar, partly by increasing the value of the assets that the scheme was built on. That’s far more than any Madoff victim is going to get. (So far, the Madoff trustee has identified only $1 billion in assets.) Tragically, Mr. Breeden said, some people who had invested in the Ponzi scheme that he helped clean up turned around and gave their money to Mr. Madoff.
“I guess some people never learn,” Mr. Breeden said.”
March 13th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Stewart was able to dig up a bit of dirt in previous shows on others. I thought he might go after more people than Cramer because as he said, its not just about Cramer. That said I think he did a good job. Stewart’s audience is more mainstream and I think his message resonated well with them.
I hope you’re right otto, that we haven’t heard the last of it. There must be a lot of people that have been waiting for the chance to pile the likes of Krudlow and his lackey’s.
BR said: As to CNBC buttering my bread, I seem to fall off the preferred list every few months. Haven’t been on Kudlow since May 2008.
This is what is even more stunning. People like Barry and Mike Panzner who had it right 18 months ago don’t get invited back but the incompetents like Luskin and Bowyer are regulars. The only bear that has been consistently invited on is Joe Battipaglia and even his appearances have dropped off in recent weeks. I think it speaks volumes to the politics involved.
March 13th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
As to CNBC buttering my bread, I seem to fall off the preferred list every few months. Haven’t been on Kudlow since May 2008. I say what I say and let the chips fall where they may. If you haven’t figured that out, you haven’t been reading here for very long…
Apologies then. I took your brief post about the event and dismissal of it as “Anti-Climax” to be tacit support of Cramer’s actions and CNBC in general.
I am a relative newcomer to your blog. Two year old posts are under current my Ritholtz radar.
If you thought it relative two years ago, perhaps a link to that would have enhanced today’s brief post and made your position clearer.
March 13th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
Ottovbvs
Logline
Cheapshots
March 13th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
There is a Google search bar up top. Enter Cramer and you can read the past posts . . . Note especially the Cramer posts on Homebuilders — he was terrible on them, an I said as much.
March 13th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Stewart is a hypocrite – he wants it both ways – is he an advocate for transparency and responsible journalism or is the the host of a comedy show on the same network which airs “The Roast of Larry The Cable Guy?”. As far as I’m concerned, he has zero credibility. He is a product of the same machine that made Cramer, and Cramer was just an easy target. Stewart has a bully pulpit on his own show, with a sympathetic audience, and he can choreograph it to paint whatever picture he wants, whenever he wants to do it.
I’d like to see this “interview”, or should I say thinly disguised witch trial, conducted on neutral ground.
Cramer should have excoriated this guy, regardless of venue.
March 13th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
matthew_t_hummel Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
“As far as I’m concerned, he has zero credibility. ”
………For most of us he has a ton more cred than Cramer…but everyone is entitled to his opinion.
1001 Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
???????????????????
” People like Barry and Mike Panzner who had it right 18 months ago ”
…….One of the reasons I became a reader of Barry’s blog two years back was because I saw him on Kudlow a couple of times getting shouted down when he was talking sense along with a couple of others like Herb Greenberg…..As it happens I think he’s now become a bit over populist about the banks and AIG but I put that down to a desire to stir up controversy….And on a hell of a lot of other stuff he’s spot on.
March 13th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
To me it was interesting watching Cramer trying to lead Stewart down a different path by citing specific examples such as Madoff, Wachovia, and Fuld whenever he was confronted with a question he was not prepared for but Stewart didn’t fall for it. Full credit to Stewart for not getting sidetracked by Cramer’s. “I’m the victim” game. Cramer came off like a moron for making recommendations based on the opinions of the executives of the companies he’s recommended without having done any of his own due diligence.
March 13th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
steffi Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
……..Surely there’s no doubt about who was the winner in this little encounter…..I stayed up to watch it and while it wasn’t a food fight…..it never was going be a food fight……Stewart had on the defensive the whole time…..I can tell a lot of folks here who see Cramer as some sort of representative of free marketology aren’t happy about it but he and CNBC didn’t emerge very well last night….It’s no accident CNBC doesn’t have this interview up on their site
March 13th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
I thought Stewart wiped the floor with him. I thought that Cramer came across as an incoherent and pathetic figure. I think he’s been advised (I assume) to be subdued and humble, but it suits him so poorly. He wasn’t able to respond except to say he’d made mistakes. But why is he doing what he is doing?
I see him as a true tragic figure. He invented a form of financial journalism. More than that: He was one of the world’s first bloggers, in fact. Every story he wrote in the days when I was at TheStreet.com had a beginning, middle, and end, even when it was two sentences. He brought a new vernacular to business journalism and he illuminated a secret world for the first time.
But now he is a clown with no dignity and no integrity. He rants about short-sellers, as if they are problem. He thinks second-by-second trading should be for the masses — or does he? Has his shtick overtaken him? Does he recognize his own fraudulence? It was always there, but in the old days, it was tempered by his self-consciousness.
Another thing about the showdown was how deadly serious Stewart is. What an era we live in where our greatest television journalist is a comedian.
March 13th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
Stewart is a hypocrite – he wants it both ways – is he an advocate for transparency and responsible journalism or is the the host of a comedy show on the same network which airs “The Roast of Larry The Cable Guy?”
What’s even worse, he is on a medium called television which also airs professional wrestling and cooking shows; and he speaks English, a language which is used by thousands of criminals.
March 13th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
I thought Jon Stewart did a great job on Cramer. Did a TKO on Cramer and bloodied CNBC.
When will people understand that Wall Street is just a glorified sales organization where the workers make most of their money on commission from pushing stocks/bonds to buyers? And that the MSM (including CNBC) make their money from the Wall Street firms that buy advertising. It’s a symbiotic relationship. No one should expect the MSM to bite the hand that feeds them!
I suspect Stewart, his family and friends have lost a lot of money they had invested in the last year.
March 13th, 2009 at 6:44 pm
@Douglas Watts: Hilarious. Made my day. Have a good weekend all. Going to hit 60 (60!!!) here in the Twin Tundras by Monday!
March 13th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
Ya know, the more I think about it, the more I think Stewart was out of line in his harshness towards Cramer. Stewart has had LEGITIMATE MURDERERS on his show, and he was careful to show them common courtesy, such as allowing them to speak. He allowed no such quarter to Cramer.
Just look at this list of MURDERERS Stewart has had on his show:
# Michael D. Brown, former head of FEMA
# Andrew Card, former White House Chief of Staff
# Karen Hughes, former executive adviser to President George H. W. Bush.
# Ari Fleischer, former White House Press Secretary
# Richard Perle, former Assistant United States Secretary of Defense
# Tony Snow, former White House Press Secretary
# George Tenet, former Director of Central Intelligence for the United States Central Intelligence Agency
# Dana Perino, former White House Press Secretary
Each of these people is responsible for the murder of hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands, and hundreds of thousands of innocent people, yet Stewart was capable of showing them common courtesy.
Stewart was out of line.
March 13th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
“Cramer should have excoriated this guy, regardless of venue.”
Cramer couldn’t have exorciated Stewart; he lacks the intellectual resources. Whereas Stewart is coherent and consistent in his ideas, Cramer is all over the place. One day he says the bear market has a long way to go, the next day he’s claiming that it just drew its last breaths. Not to mention no-show, Santelli, a derivatives trader, who proclaims that the poor are the cause of the financial meltdown and that Robert Gibbs body language, in a televised news conference, represents a physical threat to him.
March 13th, 2009 at 7:15 pm
//it’s telling that Santelli, who was held out as ’starting this’, wasn’t offered to appear, though Cramer was..
//Santelli would have told, too much of, the truth of the matter..
Santelli bottled it last Friday.
March 13th, 2009 at 7:22 pm
I watch CNBC a lot. When FBN came along, I found I preferred CNBC. When the irritating hosts come on, I listen for awhile, then hit the mute button or turn the thing off. More often than not, I’m doing something else while the tube provides white noise.
Fast Company is the best show of the day by a long shot. Kudlow and Cramer are worth watching when volatility is high or there is big news, otherwise, they’re just irritating.
Mark Haines is the most honest host. Larry Kudlow the most delusional. Erin Burnett the most programmed. Maria knows her stuff and asks pretty good questions. Rick Santelli is the network’s expert, but he’s given so little time that it’s hard to know what he’s saying.
The auto reporter speaks like an industry flack. Jane Wells is a good, entertaining and usually honest reporter. Power Lunch is pretty balanced, but I seldom listen.
CNBC producers program some of their anchors to be permabulls because viewers don’t like the bearers of bad news. Never have.
Most people who regularly watch CNBC know the game and profit from it one way or another.
The biggest conflicts of interest shown every day are the money managers who lie about not being able to time the market and urge viewer to stay in the market regardless. Like Buffett, they make their money when the suckers are in the market regardless. They don’t make money when clients are in cash, where those who still have their money have been for the last 18 to 24 months. Every asset manager should be required to disclose that he or she or their firms make 1.5% to 2% of assets that their clients have invested and that they make nothing if clients aren’t invested. I don’t think that conflict is well understood, but I am working to make that point better known.
The big question is why guests waste their time on the show when they’re given only a few seconds to make their points? Answer probably is that they hope to be invited back for longer spots, but they look like fools. They think they impress their clients by being invited on CNBC and FBN, but they look like egomaniacs, not analysts.
CNBC could be upgraded, but remember that it’s owned by GE, which has been manipulating its numbers for years and owns the rant channel MSNBC and the virtual PR channel for Obama, NBC. As for Jon Stewart, I’m guessing that he’s being fed his lines by the Democratic National Committee and other friends of Obama. He works for the owner of the Dan Rather network, CBS, which is dominated by even more lefties than MSNBC.
Watch accordingly.
~~~
BR: I was with you for a while, but then you veered into wingnut territory.
Also, Viacom and CBS have been 2 different companies for 3 years now.
March 13th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
franklin411 Says:
March 13th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
…….You don’t understand……one Iraqi is worth $10k of my personal wealth…..It’s the same principle that said one thousand Fuzzy Wuzzies were worth one Englishman at the Battle of Omdurman….. It’s roughly the same proportions in Iraq…..Unfortunately, the Arabs don’t see it that way…..but don’t tell anyone…..It might distract them from Dancing with the Stars or how many pills Anna Nicole’s boyfriend got her to pop
March 13th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
Considering all, Stewart was spot on. Cramer looked like a fool. I hope he has some money tucked away so he can go hide. Forget the “Brawl” hype and listen to what was said.
Cramer looked like he was coming on for some soft ball and got whacked,….hard.
The US consumer speaks…for better or worse…..that of John Stewart. They are saying…..Fuck You!
Hope you all had some tucked away for that time…investing gets a little….slow.
Don’t miss the gorilla in the room with all these fun and games. China is getting a little restless.
March 13th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
CNBC has not been given enough credit. They were early to bring on Roubini, Whitney, Shilling, and other bears. It was because of what they said that we withdrew all of our funds from the markets and avoided the downturn. Unfortunately, the public wanted to be bullish and laughed at all of the bears who were warning of the coming disaster. It was not CNBC’s fault, they featured many bears. If only others had also listened they could have saved themselves too. We only wish we had gone short.
March 13th, 2009 at 8:33 pm
@jmcw: ???? You ARE joking, right? Excuse me, but the only reason CNBC had on these bears over the years was to ridicule and talk over them. Shit, they’re still doing it now even after these bears were right (e.g. asking Roubini and Taleb for stock picks when those two were seriously trying to explain how fucked up everything is). They used them as token contrarian props in their little bullish corporate sychophant minstrel show. It’s all about running a little circus for CNBC and without the opposition to make fun of, how can they push their perma-bullish case to the masses?
And this – “we only wish we had gone short?” Many of us did. I didn’t go all-in short like I should have but others here did. Many others in fact.
March 13th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
http://www.doctorhousingbubble.com/what-goes-up-must-eventually-come-down-especially-when-going-up-consisted-of-using-houdini-like-smoke-and-mirrors/
This is from 2006. I never used this blog but I was blogging in 2005 where many blogs forecast this outcome. CNBC and Cramer didn’t know. They are either fools or they were fucking us over? which is it?
Google it, the info, just like YouTube is out there.
March 13th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
BR, I have to respectfully disagree. I find very little that CNBC “does well” as you say.
In my all years of watching, the greatest thing CNBC ever did was buy FNN, and in doing so they gained access to FNN’s state-of-the-art ticker.
But that was in 1991, before the World Wide Web. Who needs a TV ticker now?
Mostly, I think what CNBC tries to sell above all is access. But by definition, such access must be uncritical, shallow, infantile. Otherwise it will be denied. Deprived of the usual circle of financial stars and celebs and savants and gossipers and rumormongers and agents and hustlers, they will starve.
Maybe a rebranding is all that is needed. In the spirit of fluffy “Access Hollywood”, who they ironically emulate, let’s just call them “Access Wall Street”.
March 13th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
“Let’s have them show a little bubble above their heads that contains their current salary from CNBC, so that we can judge if these are the people who have a conflict of interest with their CNBC rantings.”
And let’s require that every time somebody comes on from one of their advertisers, that they disclose on the “ticker” how much that guys company spent in advertising. Same whenever an advertiser’s stock is touted. Just like they always remind us that GE is “the parent company of this network.”
Ultimately that’s what this is about. CNBC is what it is. Bloomberg is a bit different because in many areas (pretty much everywhere I’ve ever lived EXCEPT Manhattan), it’s part of one of the premium packages rather than part of basic cable. Their revenue model is somewhat different and so are their incentives. But, so long as they’re featuring stock touts, let’s let them include the same disclosure the impose on everybody else: “The crappy company just touted by Larry Kudlow has spent over $500,000 advertising on CNBC and other GE-owned networks in the past three months.”
-btc
March 13th, 2009 at 10:09 pm
Speaking as someone slightly “trained” in such things, I thought Cramer did an absolutely masterful job of damage control. By being noncontrovercial and boring, he took all of the momentum and fun out of the “grudge match.”
The fickle audience immediately lost interest and will move on to the next bit of sensationalism, followed closely behind by those who monitor ratings and place ads.
NOBODY in mass media is as dumb as they appear in public and there were no amateurs in that interview.
What “I” came away with was respect for Cramer’s strategy and tactics in this situation. He’s in the entertainment business for the long haul, and he isn’t going anywhere.
I’d put money on it — if I had any left.
March 13th, 2009 at 10:15 pm
p.s. If this was in fact a contest of some sort, I’d say Cramer was the clear winner, because he made the story go away in 22 minutes.
March 13th, 2009 at 10:39 pm
These anti-CNBC rants speak volumes about how many must have lost money blindly following calls from TV personalities, otherwise why would you care? Honestly, why all the hate? Just a bunch of angry people with a mob mentality here , look at the number of posts compared to that of other threads. How uniquely American it is to search for someone else to blame for your own deficiencies, someone to shout down. How self righteous of you. Keep it up, it seems to be working well for you, looking at life through the rear view that is.
March 14th, 2009 at 9:22 am
115 responses and nobody pointed out to several clueless commenters that Santelli backed out at the last minute from a scheduled appearance on TDS…
@ Bergsten – I agree. I wouldn’t say he did a masterful job, but after watching the unedited clips his mea culpas didn’t allow JS or his audience to raise the volume of the debate.
March 14th, 2009 at 10:16 am
A little love spin for Cramer here at the end.
I live in a conservative (very) red southern state in medium size metro area. Our local news pasted that interview in it’s entirety including outtakes on it’s website. Comedy Central is banned in most homes around here. That speaks volumes.
The volume of the debate was hushed because, like me, the audience was surprised. John was not pulling any punches. Cramer brought a knife to gun fight.
Cramer admitted he was not SMART enough to see this coming. The old claim ignorance claim. I believe it. I’ve seen his show.
I do think Cramer ought to be careful. In some cases that just doesn’t hold up and there are some folks out there who have been slaughtered in all this with some ability to pull strings. Again, HE was dumb enough to put HIS face on this. Santelli was SMART enough to stay out of it although I believe that interview would have been a love fest.
March 14th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
What is really sad about this whole media fiasco is that it took a tv comedian to get the dialogue started. Everyone knows that Cramer is a buffoon, and several business news outlets (Barron’s for one) have questioned his methods and track record claims. But Stewart’s indignation and outrage over what CNBC calls journalism is (or should not be) a substitute for the rest of the MSM or at least the business press getting on their case and holding them accountable. But why should they when they are as guilty as CNBC in not asking the tough questions or adequately presenting more than one side of an issue? Does anyone know of a credible blog (there aren’t very many, it seems) or other source that takes the time to hold outlets like CNBC accountable? There are a number of “fact check” websites that do a pretty good job of non-partisan review of claims and counter-claims made by our illustrious politicians – we need something like that in business news to hold not only the CNBC-style “journalists” accountable, but also the other talking heads that appear in such venues with annoying frequency and no accountability. Wow, I sure used the word “accountable” a lot in this reply – I wish the business press and especially CNBC would use it every now and then…
March 14th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
If people really are thirsty for “blood” on this issue, then all they need to do is spend some time reviewing the material on Cramer at http://www.deepcapture.com, some may find it quite unpleasant reading. If John Stewart had seen any of it before the interview, then he might have gone further than just airing some of Cramer’s Wall Street Confidential videos about bashing AAPL for a few points using some rumors ahead of MacWorld.
March 14th, 2009 at 8:54 pm
John Stewart knows exactly what he’s doing. How long after his interview on CNN’s Crossfire did that show tank? Stick a fork in him, Cramer is done.
March 15th, 2009 at 7:53 pm
I predict Wilting Cramer will demand (and get) a rematch…
This is just round one of a great PR event…
—-JoJo finally alluded to it: Stewart said “we lost a lot of money…401(k)”
It appears Stern Taskmaster Stewart is pointing fingers and playing the blame game, and it must be CNBC/Cramer. On the Comedy Channel? It was painful.
But STS does not mention the lousy choices in his and most 401(k) plans, designed to fill the pockets of the sponsoring broker.
Hmmm…so who does Warren Buffet blame? (Berkshire down 50%)