Large Scale Central

Jon Stewart vs. CNBC

General Discussion
#1

The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart normally airs a comically based, left leaning, view of the news and current events. A couple of weeks ago he was supposed to have on, as a guest, CNBC’s Rick Santelli after his famous “f the little guy” rant on the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. Santelli canceled on the day of the show. This ignited a bit of a “war” (think when McCain canceled out on Letterman last year) and the Daily Show started showing all these clips of CNBC’s antics over the past two years as corporate cheerleaders instead of reporting on the facts and issues. The number guy over at CNBC is Mad Money’s Jim Cramer who is famous for his rants and self appointed financial prophet status with the slogan “In Cramer We Trust”. Cramer became the top target with clips of him tell viewers to buy Bear Stearns less than two weeks before it crashed and burned. This gathered steam until it came to a boil on last night’s Daily Show as Jim Cramer was man enough to come on the show while Jon Stewart served Cramer a big plate of his own sh*t and made him eat it. The interview can be seen here -
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=221516&title=jim-cramer-unedited-interview

-Brian

#2

Cramers advice turned out to be more like advice from this Kramer:

(http://cerdafied.typepad.com/cerdafied_voip_mobile_web/kramer032.jpg)

#3

There is a poster of Cozmo Kramer titled “Always Look Your Best”. It hangs in the men’s room of a local restaurant. Cracks me up everytime I see it.

#4

That whole thing is painful. I mean Stewart just hands Cramer his ass, and Cramer has nowhere to run, because yes, he was basically just a shill for the people who were gambling away our savings or making our mortgage payments do flips. And CNBC was just Wall street’s partner–not journalism, no analysis, ust entertainment to divert people from the theft that was going on. It’s unfair because besides the fact that he’s totally the deck is all stacked in Stewart’s favor. Cramer looks and sounds like a cringing dog.

Stewart consistently does some really good journalism. It’s a testament to the sad state of American journalism that Stewart is often the only guy asking hard questions. he’s smart and he has a smart team.

#5

What sort of idiot would take serious financial advice from a tv stock picking comic?

#6
Quote:
... What sort of idiot would take serious financial advice from a tv stock picking comic?
That's exactly the point of Stewart's commentary. There are lots of people, because the show is presented as serious (if a bit over-the-top in terms of production) financial advice. Contrast to Stewart's show, which is presented as entertainment. Yes, newspapers are allowed to have comics sections, but generally speaking, they're not in the A section, nor are they presented as fact.

There’s a distinct difference between CNBC–which is on in virtually every financial institution and CEO’s office, and Comedy Central, which rarely shows up on TV screens in newsrooms (except, perhaps, the editing department. :wink: ) Decisions are made at very high levels based on what is said on CNBC. That’s a lot of power–perhaps more than Fox or CNN could ever hope to have over public opinion.

Later,

K

#7

The Jim Lehrer Newshour on the PBS network had a discussion and excerpts from the Kramer/Stewart interview. I cannot believe that people would invest in the stock market based on information gleaned from a show called ‘Mad Money’. Two comments that were interesting, spoken by guests discussing the interview and the role of CNBC, were ‘predatory lending’ and ‘toxic mortgages’.

#8

Tim,
Are you reporting that the PBS “guests” were intimating that ‘Mad Money’ had recommended the “Toxic Mortgages” to investors?

#9

Our own congressmen recommended Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as “buy” only weeks before they collapsed.

#10

Tony,
the guests reviewed were very critical of the roleplaying carried out by CNBC in promoting financial schemes that were widely criticised from 2001 onwards. Business Week magazine was reporting on the financial crisis from 2001 and the ‘Housing Bubble’ from 2004. It took until late 2008 for the bubble to burst. Critics of the system were widely abused in personal blogs and in the press, from 2001 onwards, in an attempt to stifle them. Will there be a congressional inquiry into the failings of the system that will get to the heart of it - very unlikely? Survival of the economic sytem will be seen as more beneficial than condemming the perpetrators. They already have their sacrficial lamb, Madoff and he will be paraded as the main culprit in the sheme. No doubt, after around five years of ‘luxury’ incarceration, he will be released on ‘medical’ grounds to enjoy a life of luxury with his ‘wife’s’ money.

#11

As of now, Mrs. Madoff, their two sons and his brother (?) are all being investigated and the $17,000,000.00 the wife claims is her inheritance is likely to be forfeited.

#12

David,
as proceeds of drug transactions are confiscated, so also should proceeds from fraud. We have had numerous businessmen, realising the imminent collapse of their business, have either transferred their assets to the wife or siblings, or divorced their marriage partner with the intent of retrieving the wealth after the business failure. Why should a spouse or family benefit from fraudulent actions of businessmen, while investors suffer total financial loss?

The onus should be on the family recipient to prove the origins of their wealth, not for the government to have to prove fraudulent gain. The onus is still on the government to prove fraud for the offender, however, his family is a recipent of the proceeds of fraud and are thus complicit in the crime (by default).

It was actually one of the sons who reported him to the authorities for fraud.

#13

The Feds are after the proceeds and anyone that saw a gain from Madoff’s scheme. If an “investor” realized a gain, those funds will be seized as well.