Saturday
Mar142009
Dear Jon
Saturday, March 14, 2009 at 03:58PM
Hmm, am I the last blogger on the Internet to find out that Jon Stewart schooled Jim Cramer of CNBC's "Mad Money" on Thursday night?
(Yes, hello, pregnant women have a hard time staying up after 9:30p.m.).
I only know because Tariq forwarded me an e-mail in which my hero (Jon Stewart) decimated his hero (Jim Cramer).
Now, I know why people watch sporting events.
There's an incredible rush that comes from a vicarious victory, even if it is a moral one, that can only be displayed in moments such as these.
If you, like me, live under a rock you can go here for a quick update.
I don't necessarily agree with the contention in that article that Stewart failed to "deliver a knock out punch." Considering that Stewart proves generally amiable towards his guests, I thought he handed Cramer's head to him on a platter. Plus, Jon wasn't funny, at all. This added to the decimation.
Angry Jon Stewart, by the way, is extremely uncomfortable.
Remember a few years ago when Stewart went on "Crossfire"? He was funny and poignant.
The tone with Cramer on Thursday night was completely different, but the message was essentially the same.
"You're hurting America."
Despite my hero worship of Mr. Stewart, I have to wonder if he's not being too idealistic, and, in many ways, if his thoughts don't reflect the general idealism with which Americans view the responsibilities of "the media."
We feel victimized. We rant about their negative influence. We complain about the selective nature of their reporting. We casually glance over the obvious fact that if a news station is live seventeen hours of the day that there may not be enough time to actually check on the facts associated with the headline.
In the end, aren't we're responsible for what we choose to believe?
How is blaming CNBC for duping the American people out of researching their investments and economy not a twinkie defense?
Is Jon Stewart right? Yes, in the ideal sense, I think he is.
But he's arguing an antiquated concept. He's arguing for an unbiased media whose priority is delivering accurate information to the population.
We have got to rework this definition. For the past fifteen years, since I started caring about the news, I've noticed that the priority lies squarely within entertainment value. Accuracy of information has played a secondary role in these matters. This is why hardly anyone watches PBS and CSPAN.
It's all about advertisers and ratings. Couldn't we just deal with the reality of our television media instead of waiting around for the real media to show up? This is our real media.
(Incidentally, we should also stop confusing commentators with journalists. We really should know better. Peter Jennings? Journalist. Keith O.? Commentator).
It's time to grow up, America, and realize that we can't fully rely on our television to tell us how to invest, who to vote for and what to think. We, gasp, have to do it ourselves.
This might translate into a personal shift in priorities. It might mean we'll have to write a senator for clarification. Read several papers instead of one. Watch CSPAN.
The way I see it, it's either that, or stop blaming the media for not protecting us from all the bad things we think are happening to us and actually take responsibility for our unquestioning and childlike acceptance of televised information.
Nonetheless, I did love Stewart's performance on the show. I'm a big believer in discussing how the world should be. Even if the chances that it will ever be that way prove slim.
My favorite part was when Jon Stewart, in uncharacteristic seriousness, vented "I can't reconcile the brilliance you have with the intricacies of the market with the crazy bullshit you do every night."
Boo- yah.
(Yes, hello, pregnant women have a hard time staying up after 9:30p.m.).
I only know because Tariq forwarded me an e-mail in which my hero (Jon Stewart) decimated his hero (Jim Cramer).
Now, I know why people watch sporting events.
There's an incredible rush that comes from a vicarious victory, even if it is a moral one, that can only be displayed in moments such as these.
If you, like me, live under a rock you can go here for a quick update.
I don't necessarily agree with the contention in that article that Stewart failed to "deliver a knock out punch." Considering that Stewart proves generally amiable towards his guests, I thought he handed Cramer's head to him on a platter. Plus, Jon wasn't funny, at all. This added to the decimation.
Angry Jon Stewart, by the way, is extremely uncomfortable.
Remember a few years ago when Stewart went on "Crossfire"? He was funny and poignant.
The tone with Cramer on Thursday night was completely different, but the message was essentially the same.
"You're hurting America."
Despite my hero worship of Mr. Stewart, I have to wonder if he's not being too idealistic, and, in many ways, if his thoughts don't reflect the general idealism with which Americans view the responsibilities of "the media."
We feel victimized. We rant about their negative influence. We complain about the selective nature of their reporting. We casually glance over the obvious fact that if a news station is live seventeen hours of the day that there may not be enough time to actually check on the facts associated with the headline.
In the end, aren't we're responsible for what we choose to believe?
How is blaming CNBC for duping the American people out of researching their investments and economy not a twinkie defense?
Is Jon Stewart right? Yes, in the ideal sense, I think he is.
But he's arguing an antiquated concept. He's arguing for an unbiased media whose priority is delivering accurate information to the population.
We have got to rework this definition. For the past fifteen years, since I started caring about the news, I've noticed that the priority lies squarely within entertainment value. Accuracy of information has played a secondary role in these matters. This is why hardly anyone watches PBS and CSPAN.
It's all about advertisers and ratings. Couldn't we just deal with the reality of our television media instead of waiting around for the real media to show up? This is our real media.
(Incidentally, we should also stop confusing commentators with journalists. We really should know better. Peter Jennings? Journalist. Keith O.? Commentator).
It's time to grow up, America, and realize that we can't fully rely on our television to tell us how to invest, who to vote for and what to think. We, gasp, have to do it ourselves.
This might translate into a personal shift in priorities. It might mean we'll have to write a senator for clarification. Read several papers instead of one. Watch CSPAN.
The way I see it, it's either that, or stop blaming the media for not protecting us from all the bad things we think are happening to us and actually take responsibility for our unquestioning and childlike acceptance of televised information.
Nonetheless, I did love Stewart's performance on the show. I'm a big believer in discussing how the world should be. Even if the chances that it will ever be that way prove slim.
My favorite part was when Jon Stewart, in uncharacteristic seriousness, vented "I can't reconcile the brilliance you have with the intricacies of the market with the crazy bullshit you do every night."
Boo- yah.
tagged daily show, jim cramer, jon stewart in Politics
daily show, jim cramer, jon stewart in Politics
Reader Comments (20)
wow. that was wildly satisfying to watch. i thought Kramer handled it well for sure --- but i agree with all of Stewart's points.
thanks for this.
Agreed.
The problem is, I think most people don't WANT to read more than one paper, or think for themselves, mostly. They'd rather watch "The View" and take what they say to heart.
But Jon is the man, definitely.
So I was unaware of this brewing until someone brought this up in class.
Kudos to Jon (incidentally, he's my favourite Jew).
But I disagree with you to some degree. I don't think Jon is being too idealistic. The media is complicit. Moreover, they have a facade of being fair and balanced and investigative. You can't later come out and say, "oh, we were lied to!".
You say that they're commentators and not journalists. Then they shouldn't call themselves news networks and make it clear that their purpose is entertainment and not news/journalism.
But that's not what they claim, their very claim is to be unbiased news sources. They should be held to that.
But sadly, this is probably where this debate will end. "Yaay, Jon had a 12 minute uncomfortable segment, go Jon!". That's all well and dandy, but (as Jon so aptly pointed out) there are lives at stake here. This is bigger than any one person. I think that perspective is important.
Tomorrow we'll go back to our busy lives. News media will still flat out lie and be manipulated by corporate types. People's lives will continue to be destroyed.
I watched it all earlier today and I thought it was much ado about nothing.
Stewart was really mad at CNBC and not Cramer. Cramer wound up being the only one at CNBC who responded to Stewart's criticism, so that is how the whole thing played out. Stewart admits this a few times in the interview.
And I really thought that Cramer, who I kinda hate, handled himself pretty well. He admitted that what he does isn't really financial advice and that is mostly entertainment. And he apologized a bunch of times for giving erroneous advice.
How can Stewart try to present a serious expose on how CNBC should have known better when he himself could have done the same thing back before it happened? He proudly states that he isn't a real journalist or an economist, but then tries to poke blame at Cramer (and by proxy, CNBC) for doing what he does. Providing entertainment.
That said...I fucking love John Stewart and I hope he stays on the air forever. I just think this Cramer thing was blown up to ridiculous proportions.
Cramer's Mad Money is on MSNBC. MSNBC is a NEWS NETWORK.
Stewart's Daily Show is on COMEDY CENTRAL. COMEDY CENTRAL is a COMEDY NETWORK. I don't care if Mad Money is labeled an "entertainment show"... it is on a news network and has an obligation to follow some semblance of journalism standards to fulfill the image that the network presents for it... that of a market analysis, advice, and news program. When Cramer admits that he is passing along information he knows to be wrong, that violates journalism standards and is unacceptable. For somebody on a comedy show running on a comedy network to have to point this out to him speaks volumes as to what passes as journalistic integrity now-a-days.
For many years I have tried to argue that people should get their news from a variety of sources. I learned this from my high school debate coach. (And I have to say thank you for giving me the opportunity to say this after spending an evening with many of my team mates from those days.) Yes, I watch a great deal of trashy reality TV. However I do not believe that that, or anything resembling it, is "news." Interesting trivial facts? Yes. News? No. Unfortunately I think that many people have bought into to the idea that this trivial stuff is indeed news. Why else would we continuously see this stuff?
You totally said "Keith O." because you were too lazy to look up his last name to make sure you spelled it correctly, didn't you?
And the difference between this and sports is that this is intelligent, not brutish.
@Crys: I thought Kramer was the epitome of diplomacy and grace under fire. But... that could been cuz he know he wrong!!
@Sybil Law: And, really, isn't it obvious that most people get their opinions from The View... I hate people.
@adnan: "Tomorrow we’ll go back to our busy lives. News media will still flat out lie and be manipulated by corporate types. People’s lives will continue to be destroyed." Therein lies my contention that he's being idealistic. I understand what he's saying, I agree with what he's saying, I think it's important that he says it, but I don't think it's going to change anything.
@B.E. Earl: I was surprised both at how pissed off Jon Stewart was and how calm . But, yeah, he's awesome.
@Dave2: Mad Money is on CNBC here in Florida, not MSNBC. I thought Jon Stewart also made your point beautifully in the first clip I posted. Furthermore, I agree with this point. But, I also feel that the citizenry of this country has an obligation to better inform themselves instead of relying solely on a guy that throws cream pies at CEOs to make his points about financial news. Shame on him for being deceptive, shame on us for not being more discerning about who to believe.
@Kailyn: I would even go so far as to say that I don't care if people choose to take that information as news, BUT when they start crying about how they haven't been told the truth, I have to roll my eyes a bit.
@Avitable: Hahahahaha! Busted. It's Olbermann, right? And, I think you're diminishing the amount of intellect it takes the players of team sports to memorize different plays, how to implement them and to adjust them as the situations change. And, I also would argue that die hard fans are fairly scientific in their analysis of their favored team's performance. Just because *you* don't like it, doesn't make it stupid, honey.
I'm not sure, that's why I didn't spell it out either!
Did you just say that it takes a lot of intellect for some of these idiots to play these sports? Rote memorization does not equal intellect.
Some fans might be scientific in their analysis of their favored team's performance, but people are also scientific of their analysis of Star Wars. It's still stupid.
Faiqa, but the reason nothing changes is because you and I don't change it. Or perhaps like the media, we feel it's not our role. "Like the media" in the sense that the media says, "jee, we were lied to! boo hoo!". That's not a claim that is theirs to make. But is it not the job of the media to verify the validity of the statements made?
What exactly is the role of the media? When Saddam Hussein says 99% of Iraq supports him, how is that reported? And then when a CEO says that their stock is doing great, how is that reported?
So again, what is the role of the media, and what is our role in relation to it? Who is keeping the media honest?
A good article that reflects how I feel about this: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/03/13/cramer/index.html
i really love your intelligent and thoughtful self.
You're right, Stewart was being idealistic, but (at least in my opinion) idealism is a great foundation for an honest media.
I have a different viewpoint on this whole recession coverage issue than you - I'm frustrated that it's getting so much attention. Yes, some companies are in hard times, and yes some individuals are losing their jobs, but because of the media saturation that exists in modern times due to the proliferation of niche networks and publications, this recession is being painted as the beginning of the descent into Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome territory, some sort of precursor to a post-apocalyptic society, and we're not there, and we're not going to get there.
Bottom line, I agree: we need to filter our media ourselves, not depend on the media to do it for us. Without that, we are just sheep.
No - I don't think it's idealistic.
I think that, yes, we have a responsibility to ourselves to be informed.
But where are we supposed to go to be informed? Are we supposed to sit on Capitol Hill or record 12-hours of C-Span every night? Are we supposed to research every company on Wall Street?
That's not possible. The point of a free, unbiased press is to gather information and report it, not to tell us what to think, but so that we can be informed decision makers.
You need both sides of that equation to be doing their part.
@Avitable: What's that hanging in the air? Is it all the latent aggression left over from getting pantsed by jocks all through one's childhood?
@adnan. : Good article. Yes, we should be keeping the media honest, but it's a massive undertaking. Would it irritate you and make you lose all respect for me if I said "You do it, you're way younger than me and have access to far more energy and idealism?" :)
@hello haha narf: My intelligent and thoughtful self loves you too.
@SciFi Dad: You know, as long as it's not "Water World," I'll be OK with whatever happens.
@Britt: Does that mean you *don't* watch CSPAN 12 hours a day? I'm so disappointed. I think there's a place between only watching CNN (or worse, Rush Limbaugh or Keith Olbermann) as a source for media and watching CSPAN all day that will help us discern the facts.
Unbiased media in America is an ideal, it does not, cannot and never has existed. That's why we HAVE to start relying on multiple streams for our information. It's annoying and means we might have to watch a little less American Idol. And? I do think people who give their retirement money to Wall Street investors should rely on much more research than CNBC, Jim Cramer and their television.
Would it irritate you and make you lose all respect for me if I said
Well, this is entirely dependant upon how much respect I have for you now. =P
I know it sounds idealistic, but is it really?
"Realism" is simply defeatism in disguise.
You describe the Internet to someone 20 or 30 years ago, a place where anyone can publish their thoughts and opinions, share documents, create an editable encyclopedia, connecting millions of people with free information. Someone would say that it's too idealistic, and send you back to coding the next accounting application (because we know how important those are).
In my view, there's really no such thing as idealism or idealistic. There is what is real, the way things are now, and then there's what we want things to be like, and that is dependant upon what we do (our actions) to bring about the reality we want. Everything else is just talk.
=)
I love that and I see your point. That was beautifully said.
[...] Faiqa posted about the incident and she wonders if Stewart is being too idealistic. I respectfully disagree. I think that our standards for realism are far too low. It should not be considered idealism to expect journalistic media outlets to investigate what they report. If we wanted regurgitation we would simply read the CEOs’ company “vision” web pages. It should not considered idealism to want politicians to serve the public interest over corporate interest. This is a level of realism that we should come to expect and one that we should strive for. [...]
dammit! i kept meaning to watch this all weekend, and then i plum forgot! i loves me some john stewart...
Oh I'd say he reduced him by more than a mere tenth. It was better than "decimated."
Jon Stewart really knows how to throw it down.