Amazon.com Widgets

« Links With Your Coffee - Thursday | Main | Links With Your Coffee - Friday »

Criminal Cramer


Jim Cramer and Jon Stewart went toe-to-toe last night. It was just like Ali-Foreman, only with more head trauma. But you didn't see everything. Much of the interview had to be cut for time. But this is the internet, where all we have is time. So, here now, is the exclusive, uncensored, complete three-part interview.
Related:
Economic Meltdown No Laughing Matter
It's true: Jon Stewart has become Edward R. Murrow(tip to Mat and John)
There's nothing unique about Cramer

Not since Crossfire has Jon been in such fine form.





 

Comments

One of TDS's finest hours-and they've had a lot of them.

Does anyone have any way of viewing these from Canada? The Comedy Network is featuring only the edited videos.

Comedy Central has uncut version here.

http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/#clip149637

user-pic

You can browse to the Daily Show site using a proxy server. Best to read up on it if unfamiliar, there is a list of proxies here: http://proxy.org/

Grats to Cramer for doing this interview. Takes guts to be put on the heat like that.

Double Grats for Jon. He has a great nose for news.

Check out the Times review of the bally-hoed event: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/14/arts/television/14watc.html?_r=2&hp Yes, I get it, controversy breeds ratings, but, Cramer was a befuddled mess, and the comedian looked damn near senatorial. The last laugh will be had by whatever show takes the vacated 6pm CNBC timeslot.

The problem of course is much bigger than Cramer. "What he did and the excuses he offered are ones that are embraced as gospel to this day by most of our establishment press corps, and to know that this is true, just look at what they do and say about their roles." http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/03/13/cramer/index.html

It would be great to have an institution that does indeed truly analyze the stock market and other aspects of the financial world. It's highly unlikely: people don't like unhappy news. As Cramer said, "There is a market for it."

A show(s) that gives bad news about a company or other entity probably wouldn't bring in enough money/ratings to keep the network happy; it may even be blamed for the demise of a corporation to shift blame away from management.

I do give props to Cramer for not totally losing it, but he did looked befuddled, especially when Jon rolled the damning clips from TheStreet. Cramer looked like that kid who was caught showing others how to slip their hands in the cookie jar.

Big heart out to Jon.

I have not seen the entire uncut edition, but what I just saw as a regular European edition was magnificent.

My respect for JS just tripled. Cramer was annihilated. JS seemed to know exectly what responses might come...and he just killed the rabbit.

I wish we had journalistic balls like that all across the political landscape, but I'm guessing you wouldn't get that many interviews...

@Gypsy sister

Maybe Cramer didn't lose it...but that was because he was completely stunned. I think I saw tears in the corners of his eyes at one point....credibility blown, bazaam!

"I wish we had journalistic balls like that all across the political landscape, but I'm guessing you wouldn't get that many interviews..."

Jon Stewart addressed this concept during his 'interview' on Crossfire. They were on him for cradling somebody's balls instead of putting them to the fire. His response was that his show follows muppets making crank phone calls. He was trying to make the point that his was a comedy show, and when supposed respectable news programs look to Comedy Central to hold the bar, something is amiss.

Jon was amazing, but after seeing this I have more respect for Cramer as well. A few of his responses were evasive/meaningless, but he faced the music and did so (I thought) with suitable humility. He was quite reasonable and willing to admit to his mistakes, which is more than I expected.

Absolutely brilliant interview! Jon Stewart did a fantastic job.

You gotta give Jim Cramer credit too, it takes a lot of balls to come out and face that. Although the real measure of his character will be if anything changes.

It's also kind of sad that a comedy show can set a benchmark for journalism.

"Cramer was annihilated."

Well it didn't look like he went on the Daily Show to really argue with John anyways, so I think you guys are being a little over the top with all this "annihilated" talk. I mean John made a lot of good points, and Cramer didn't seem to really disagree with many of them, and really seemed to take a lot of it in as constructive critisim. One would think that's a good thing.

Time will tell if he chooses to apply any of it to his silly show though.

The Guardian in the U.K. is currently running a campaign highlighting Corporate tax gap, the gap in the amount that corporations should pay in the 'spirit of the law' and the amount that they actually pay: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/series/tax-gap

It is this kind of journalism which can only be born out of a funding model such as: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardian_newspaper#Ownership

where an organisation is not reliant on the short term whim of the economic climate for its financial viability. I only hope that the bid dailies in the U.S. are able to move towards a sustainable path, but as the article below in the NY Times points out, there may no longer be so many big dailies: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/business/media/12papers.html

Of course CNBC tows the corporate (money) line, it is a corporation. The Daily Show will only exist in its current form if continues to get ratings, as its corporation is no different. To be different (not reliant on ratings) requires a different funding model.

A local Los Angeles news man called Jon "full of himself." Perhaps that was just jealousy? The press has spent eight years rolling over reporting what they must have known was nonsense and now it must be humiliating to have a comedy show take on their traditional role. Cramer seemed overwhelmed just being on the Daily Show and offered a tepid defense of himself and Mad Money. Jon and his staff of talented writers are really good at finding past indiscretions on tape - and Cramer knew he had too many skeletons to be uncovered. Bad news is bad TV? 60 Minutes has been delivering bad news for decades and delivering solid ratings for as long. I thought it was interesting that the talking bobble-heads on Fox News were defending Cramer but I realized that Fox Business News is as guilty of the same puff reporting as CNBC. There is a vested interest in defending the competition.

Bad news is bad TV?

I don't know if this is aimed toward my comment, but I did not say bad news is bad tv, I said that networks don't have the stomach for it.

60 Minutes has been delivering bad news for decades and delivering solid ratings for as long.

60 Minutes is the only program that has survived for years in this classification. Here is an article I found that chronicles 60 min.

From September 1966 through December 1975, network management shifted the scheduling position of 60 Minutes seven times. Its ratings were very low according to industry standards, although slightly higher than those of CBS Reports when aired in the same time slot, but critical response remained positive. In today's competitive environment, where "unsuccessful" programs are quickly removed from the schedule, the series would not remain on the air. But in the early 1970s the CBS News Division sought a more engaging weekly documentary form.

Lawsuits from those exposed make it difficult to keep these kinds of shows afloat. Below are some examples of fallout from 60 Minutes episodes. This kind of reporting isn't for the faint of wallet.

Stark revelations by eyewitnesses have lead to extensive damage and bankruptcy of companies, even to death threats. One person, after disclosing odometer tampering in the automotive industry had his house blown up.

Following the segment entitled "The Selling of Col. Herbert," for example, Col. Anthony Herbert initiated a defamation suit against producer Barry Lando. The suit was dismissed after ten years, but not before the Supreme Court decision giving Herbert's lawyers the right to "direct evidence" about the editorial process. Specifically, they were given access to film outtakes and editors' notes that could establish malicious intent by illustrating the producer's "state of mind." Dr. Carl Galloway's slander suit against Dan Rather and 60 Minutes went to court after Rather left the show to anchor the Evening News, but when Rather, and the series' production process, were scrutinized on the witness stand the examination raised questions about the power of editing to construct specific images of an individual.

There's more in Wikipedia for those who think they'd like to start such a program.

Thanks for posting this, Norm!

I must differ from what appears to be the majority opinion here, in that I have somewhat mixed feelings about how Jon did in this interview.

On the one hand, Jon had many excellent points to make. His team gets high marks for research and preparedness. I wish more journalists were as intelligent and dedicated.

On the other hand, I must take issue with the general way he handled the interview. He rarely gave Jim much of an opportunity to answer the questions, instead interrupting with another question (usually raising another important issue). At times, I thought Jim became confused as to which issue he was expected to address.

Perhaps this particular interview simply needed more time; as I mentioned, Jon had a lot of ground he wanted to cover. It was just disappointing that his guest wasn’t given equal time to respond.

John is not a journalist, so the ethics of good journalism or the lack there of does not apply to him. He is a self-confessed comedian. You are calling foul on the wrong game here.

This thread is filled with people commending Jon for raising the journalistic bar. Norm posted a link comparing him to Edward R. Murrow. Yet you call me out for holding Jon up to some standards by saying none should apply, because he’s a comedian, not a journalist?

That interview wasn’t exactly a laugh-fest. That was Jon performing hard-hitting journalism. And he doesn’t get to duck the responsibilty that goes along with that just because he is funny at other times. Just as Jim Cramer doesn’t get to duck responsibility just because he is “throwing plastic cows through his legs”.

I didn't actually feel there was much Cramer could say - I did think Jon gave him a chance and Cramer had spent the week doing interviews presenting his point of view (not that Stewart didn't have the time also but I didn't find the same fault you did.) I think all of Cramer's answers were more of the same - he was lied to also - well, that is to Jon's point that he kept missing.

On the other hand, I did feel bad for Cramer - not because I think that anything was unfair but, it became pretty obvious that he was embarrassed and uncomfortable and everything else which just goes to show he's not one of the major players because, the ones I've seen - they aren't embarrassed about ANYTHiNG. They are entitlement personified....they might get really angry over the audacity anyone had in confronting them or for being in that situation but there would be no real human response - except like Madoff's - for getting caught.

Yet John remains the comedian pretending to be a journalist. Even if he pretends to be a good journalist, he is still a self-confessed comedian. Cramer on the other hand was playing the role of a financial analyst pretending to be a comedian. The order matters here.

All I'm saying is, Jon shouldn't get the accolades without some criticism being allowed also. If you're going to play the "comedian pretending to be a journalist" card, it goes both ways.

It was a trick. A comedian playing the part of a journalist gets treated like one. Even his fans here have ended up speaking about the ethics of a man pretending to be a journalist. If you are pretending to be a journalist on a what is obviously a comedy show complete with the comedy central logo and people mistake you are the real one, you can hardly be accused of trickery. I mean basically you are accusing John of your lack of oversight.

Stewart: a comedian, but somewhat of a court jester. He's allowed to tackle serious subjects, but only in the name of fun. Audiences will take him seriously, but leaders pick and choose what they want to take into consideration. There i a difference in that a king might cry "off with his head" and that ain't gonna happen here.

This seems to be the case of a court jester being mistaken for a courtier.

I'm pretty sure that Cramer must have been taken aback by the dense seriousness of the entire interview. It's not often that JS maintains that level.

I don't really recognize Cramer's "humility". I saw it more as a case of shell shock. If you look at the attitude he put out previously when talking about JS, it all renders him a big two-face in my book.

I know most of Cramer's own program is theatre - but he expects his advice and opinions to be respected as professional, which is where sanity sort of collapses.

I consider John a journalist, a great one at that!

That interview was gold!

Navigation

Support this site

Google Ads


Powered by Movable Type Pro

Copyright © 2002-2017 Norman Jenson

Contact


Commenting Policy

note: non-authenticated comments are moderated, you can avoid the delay by registering.

Random Quotation

Individual Archives

Monthly Archives