I just watched the back and forth, finally.
First of all, Stewart was unjustifiably manipulative of Cramer. Cramer was self-deprecating, and honest in his assessment of himself, his show and his show's role in the world. He was big to go on the Daily Show and Stewart made Cramer look bad in a way that was unfair.
First of all, Stewart was unjustifiably manipulative of Cramer. Cramer was self-deprecating, and honest in his assessment of himself, his show and his show's role in the world. He was big to go on the Daily Show and Stewart made Cramer look bad in a way that was unfair.
2 comments:
Did you watch the whole thing? The full 24-minute interview is here. I assume the edited version as aired was representative.
Yeah, it was profoundly uncomfortable. The journalistic equivalent of the auto CEOs coming to the senate to get yelled at, and Cramer took it with good grace.
I think that Stewart had an excellent point -- the financial media, with CNBC as its standard bearer, has been guilty of journalistic malpractice over the past decade. They relentlessly pushed the "good news" and pitched increased ownership in equities, as if they were commission-paid financial agents (which many of their reporters used to be). But there was no real journalism; there was no investigation of the shady and dangerous practices that were known to industry insiders. So all that was fair and on-topic.
Where Stewart made me a little uncomfortable was holding Cramer responsible for the sins of the industry. Yeah, he's a hype-man and a charlatan like all the rest, and Stewart called him on some of his bullshit (beautifully). But it was unfair to make him answer for all the rest of the financial snake-oil salesmen, and that's where I thought Cramer wound up looking victimized.
All in all, it was more illuminating and satisfying and real journalism than anyone has a tight to expect from a comedy central show.
I held off commenting until I'd seen the whole thing.
The clips Stewart played of Cramer were his biggest sin. They make it look like Cramer was actually describing his own practices, when he was actually trying to illuminate the practices common to the field. Stewart made Cramer look like a criminal--on purpose and Cramer didn't catch how the lack of context made him look evil.
Stewart had a good point, but after Cramer admitted his own short-sightedness Stewart didn't draw the distinction between enthusiastic talk-show host and evil ponzi-scheme pitchman starkly enough. No one watches Cramer and thinks they are getting sober investment advice.
Post a Comment