Comments on: Anti-Climax: Cramer vs. Stewart

By: rdub

rdub — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 23:53:40 +0000

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%)

By: tesky

tesky — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 00:54:43 +0000

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.

By: ESfreddie

ESfreddie — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 18:23:43 +0000

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.

By: bill750

bill750 — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 17:05:53 +0000

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…

By: Ken H.

Ken H. — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 14:16:00 +0000

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.

By: bonghiteric

bonghiteric — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 13:22:12 +0000

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.

By: plantseeds

plantseeds — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 02:39:58 +0000

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.

By: bergsten

bergsten — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 02:15:40 +0000

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.

By: bergsten

bergsten — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 02:09:59 +0000

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.

By: BelowTheCrowd

BelowTheCrowd — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 01:29:09 +0000

“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