Jon Stewart PWNS Jim Cramer

[countchocula]

This was awesome.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/index.jhtml?episodeId=220533

[Brando @$$ Fat]

The outcome was pretty obvious before it even happened. Jon Stewart was on his own turf and Jim Cramer has sort of a wimpy-sounding voice when he's not yelling. Plus, Jim Cramer is one of the better ones. He's not great, and that recently surfaced online video was shameful, but he actually seems somewhat sensitive to how people are affected by the decisions made on Wall Street. Stewart had Cramer from the beginning because Cramer actually has a sense of right and wrong...and he knew he was wrong.

[countchocula]

Yeah, I have to give Cramer credit. He knew that there was no point in backpeddling.

[Vong]

I could barely understand all that business bullshit they both spoke of, but I knew Cramer was getting his ass kicked...somehow!

[Badbird]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ExNq3K85nU


Tucker Carlson didn't like it. I guess he's still sore from his asskicking by Jon Stewart.

[eljefe15]

Cramer took it in the ass for thousands of Wall Street douche bags that have robbed us blind for years. But in the end, what will change? A moral victory doesn't put food on the table.

[Preston_79]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ExNq3K85nU


Tucker Carlson didn't like it. I guess he's still sore from his asskicking by Jon Stewart.


Carlson hosted the Dennis Miller show and said all the same stuff about John Stewart. It's like, let it go man. I think it's also funny that Stewart ripped on Carlson's bow tie and he doesn't wear one anymore. He looked like a school boy wimp with that tie on.

I'm growing tired of Stewart though. The Daily Show is supposed to be comical, but he takes his opinions way too seriously sometimes while sitting up on his high chair. It's like he's the only sane person left in the world, and all he can do is point and laugh at all the idiots now.

I say fuck Carlson, fuck Cramer, and fuck Stewart. With the exception of Cramer I think they're partisan hacks. Cramer's guilty of giving people bad advice, big deal. Cramer and probably half of all the other financial investors out there are guilty of the same thing. Cramer's just fortunate enough to have his own show.

[countchocula]

I'm growing tired of Stewart though. The Daily Show is supposed to be comical, but he takes his opinions way too seriously sometimes while sitting up on his high chair. It's like he's the only sane person left in the world, and all he can do is point and laugh at all the idiots now.


Did you watch the full episode? The set-up before the interview was actually quite funny, and Stewart treated it as a simple disagreement (as opposed to the apocalyptic showdown that other networks wanted it to be). I'd say he takes himself just as seriously as Cramer or Carlson do (or anyone else with an opinion).

You have to admit that in this case, Stewart was right and Cramer was wrong.

[shoe1985]

Cramer knows a lot about the stock market, probably more than you or I know about it. He is human, he makes mistakes. He gets told information, and he makes educated guesses as to what could happen. I would assume that the majority of that information is very solid information, but you will get some information that is wrong or fake.

Stewart saw a chance to hit one of these people that gave bad information, and he took it. I do like Cramer, and have used a lot of what he has said the past few years to make a decent amount of money in the markets. Is he always right, no, nobody ever is. But, he knew he was wrong, and he took it like a man, most people in his position would probably have made excuses.

[Homyrrh]

As a preface, my thoughts on Mr. Stewart have increasingly gravitated toward disdain over the years; this seems proportionate to his unfounded metamorphosis from "comedian" to "pundit". He should be looking toward Colbert for some guidance.

But alas, Cramer is an undisputed expert on financial markets. When he performs so poorly at this profession that affects so many Americans to such a grave degree, especially in these immediately contemporary times, it's very easy for Stewart, hwoever right he was, to assail the guy because he's one of the Wall Street henchman that diabolically sabotaged the market and sold infant skulls for pennies on the dollar.

[Criminal Rock]

What do you mean "unfounded metamorphoses"? He's been commentating on politics for many, many moons now... pretty much since 1997 when first took over the show... and are you saying he shouldn't commentate on politics/current events simply because he's a comedian, or because he doesn't work for a "legit" news station?

[countchocula]

But alas, Cramer is an undisputed expert on financial markets. When he performs so poorly at this profession that affects so many Americans to such a grave degree, especially in these immediately contemporary times, it's very easy for Stewart, hwoever right he was, to assail the guy because he's one of the Wall Street henchman that diabolically sabotaged the market and sold infant skulls for pennies on the dollar.

Stewart wasn't singling Cramer out, though. He was addressing MSNBC as a whole (he might have used one Cramer clip, but he addressed other pundits as well). Cramer is the one who took offense and started talking shit. That's the only reason the brawl was billed as "Cramer vs. Stewart." In actuality, Stewart was talking about any media outlet that was acting irresponsibly.

[Vong]

You guys can hate all you want on Stewart, but the man is a genius.

[Criminal Rock]

Well, there shouldn't be any hate on anyone who speaks the truth on important issues, even if that person is a comedian.

[shoe1985]

I am not hating on Stewart. He is calling out everyone who caused this mess, Cramer just got pulled into the middle of it, mainly his own fault. Everyone has an opinion, and Stewart is allowed to do it a bigger stage than we are able to do.

[someguy]

Stewart seems to want to have things be both ways for him. I remember back when he did the Crossfire interview he kept saying that his show came on after puppets doing crank calls when Tucker Carlson asked why he didn't give John Kerry any tough questions. At that time it might have been a fair point, but now there's no way he can still hide behind that 'it's a comedy show!' excuse. You can't go around pulling the kind of stuff he does with Cramer and other guests and then once someone starts criticizing or bringing stuff up against you hide behind the fact that you're on Comedy Central. I've noticed that Jon Stewart has done this plenty of times. If it really was just a comedy show like he puts it then why would he do a 15 minute unfunny lecture to Jim Cramer?

I like The Daily Show and I like Jon Stewart but my biggest complaint with him is how he shields himself from criticism by saying his show is a comedy program.

[Preston_79]

Stewart seems to want to have things be both ways for him. I remember back when he did the Crossfire interview he kept saying that his show came on after puppets doing crank calls when Tucker Carlson asked why he didn't give John Kerry any tough questions. At that time it might have been a fair point, but now there's no way he can still hide behind that 'it's a comedy show!' excuse. You can't go around pulling the kind of stuff he does with Cramer and other guests and then once someone starts criticizing or bringing stuff up against you hide behind the fact that you're on Comedy Central. I've noticed that Jon Stewart has done this plenty of times. If it really was just a comedy show like he puts it then why would he do a 15 minute unfunny lecture to Jim Cramer?

I like The Daily Show and I like Jon Stewart but my biggest complaint with him is how he shields himself from criticism by saying his show is a comedy program.


I completely agree.

[Homyrrh]

What do you mean "unfounded metamorphoses"? He's been commentating on politics for many, many moons now... pretty much since 1997 when first took over the show... and are you saying he shouldn't commentate on politics/current events simply because he's a comedian, or because he doesn't work for a "legit" news station?Well, he doesn't work for a news station at all, and apart from the issue, he's "countered that neither his show nor his channel purports to be anything other than satire and comedy" [Wiki]. Obviously, this hasn't proven to be true.
Stewart wasn't singling Cramer out, though. He was addressing MSNBC as a whole (he might have used one Cramer clip, but he addressed other pundits as well). Cramer is the one who took offense and started talking shit. That's the only reason the brawl was billed as "Cramer vs. Stewart." In actuality, Stewart was talking about any media outlet that was acting irresponsibly.CNBC (the business and financial channel) is indeed guilty of apparently giving awful advice. Jim Cramer, doubtless the network's face in primetime on 'Mad Money', is the easy target, who would have, by rule of logic, returned the "shit" talk cast onto him.
You guys can hate all you want on Stewart, but the man is a genius. Comically, at least. I wouldn't say any political pundit is much in the way of genius...
Well, there shouldn't be any hate on anyone who speaks the truth on important issues, even if that person is a comedian.Hated? I'm simply irked by what I've seen to be Stewart's continual and increasing willingness to trade humor and satire for political statement. This turns me from his show to Colbert's broadcast.
I am not hating on Stewart. He is calling out everyone who caused this mess, Cramer just got pulled into the middle of it, mainly his own fault. Everyone has an opinion, and Stewart is allowed to do it a bigger stage than we are able to do.
- - -

Ultimately, Cramer got out there knowing he'd be rocked. The network apparently offered continually awful advice, and while I cannot condone such perpetually bad guidance, Cramer has the stats and wallet to back his expertise in the financial sector. Stewart is not wrong in going after CNBC, or really even Cramer, but his ferocious lack of hesitance to depart from any sense of humor in doing so is annoyingly the same as this "bipartisan effort" to tar-and-feather AIG for these bonuses...it's simple and rudimentary to do so, and sure as hell looks great on election-time TV spots.

[Criminal Rock]

The Cramer interview is probably the most serious interview I've seen on his show, so yeah, if he tries arguing with that logic now that would be pretty lame.

[countchocula]

I think this was a topic that Stewart was just very, very passionate about. Tai is right...Jon is usually a little goofier than that. But I can see where you guys are coming from. The only reason why Colbert is more satirical is because he's playing a character. Stewart is voicing the concerns of the average American in a more direct way.

[Criminal Rock]

I think this was a topic that Stewart was just very, very passionate about.

And that's exactly why I don't understand how John Stewart being a comedian has to do with anything... Who cares if he is, what does that even matter? He pointed out a lot of truths even Cramer couldn't deny.

[Vong]

Comedians can be social commentators, they aren't limited to what they want to talk about. Do you think George Carlin would have gotten far if he didn't comment on society's crap?

[someguy]

The only example I can remember is the Crossfire stuff, but I've seen him bring up how what he does is a comedy show a few times over the years in different interviews whenever someone tries to throw some sort of criticism against what he does. If he's claiming that he's just a comedian doing a show for laughs then I don't know why he would do something like what he did to Cramer. Like I said, he's trying to have it be both ways.

What Tucker Carlson said back in 2004 didn't have much weight behind it but I think that now it's a fair criticism. I don't exactly have a problem with Stewart deciding to be journalistic or funnyman to who he wants but I do have a problem with him using the Comedy Central excuse as a shield rather than just owning up to it.

[Preston_79]

Even dildos like Tucker Carlson can be right every now and again.



I tuned in to the Dennis Miller show today and Jon Stewart called in. I don't think he once mentioned Carlson who had just hosted Miller's show days earlier and raked him over the coals, calling him a hack among other things because of the Cramer confrontation. Seems funny that Miller would have someone host his show that does that to one of his apparent friends. Stewart calling up and being so chummy with Miller is just his way of saying fuck you Carlson.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Even dildos like Tucker Carlson can be right every now and again.



I tuned in to the Dennis Miller show today and Jon Stewart called in. I don't think he once mentioned Carlson who had just hosted Miller's show days earlier and raked him over the coals, calling him a hack among other things because of the Cramer confrontation. Seems funny that Miller would have someone host his show that does that to one of his apparent friends. Stewart calling up and being so chummy with Miller is just his way of saying fuck you Carlson.

They are comedians. They are friends. That is why he went on the show.

[hasselbrad]

And that's exactly why I don't understand how John Stewart being a comedian has to do with anything... Who cares if he is, what does that even matter? He pointed out a lot of truths even Cramer couldn't deny.

Exactly... and the biggest being that CNBC has no more credibility as a source of financial information than Comedy Central has a source of hard news.
People like Cramer have clowned around over the past few years rather than shining a harsh, journalistic light on the criminal practices that have crippled the economy.

[Homyrrh]

Exactly... and the biggest being that CNBC has no more credibility as a source of financial information than Comedy Central has a source of hard news.
People like Cramer have clowned around over the past few years rather than shining a harsh, journalistic light on the criminal practices that have crippled the economy.
'Mad Money' is intended to be nothing but very light financial fare manifested through a manical entertiner of a host. Cramer's role is simply to be loud and obnoxious and throw some recommended stocksto me, and nothing else. Not exposing government scandal or condemning certain corporations for anything other than what will affect its stock price. Likewise, Stewart's a comedian, not a commentator, and using his pulpit to preach some very partisan tones is not true to the nautre of his show. Likewise, I would very much hope that Stuart Scott or Chris Berman would stick to sports and not throwing down with political treachery.

[Badbird]

Likewise, Stewart's a comedian, not a commentator, and using his pulpit to preach some very partisan tones is not true to the nautre of his show. Likewise, I would very much hope that Stuart Scott or Chris Berman would stick to sports and not throwing down with political treachery.

Have you not been watching The Daily Show for the past eight years? It's been this way for a while.

The Daily Show started out a long time ago as a half-talk show/half-Hard Copy type parody. I think the sense of humor was a lot more mean and bitter while under Craig Kilborne. But it was a pretty different show back then. Had it stayed that format, I don't think it would have survived this long.

Slowly it turned into more of a "Nightly News" parody under Stewart. But then the show really found its voice while covering the 2000 elections, and has essentially been a political commentary comedy show ever since.

In fact, I think some of the worst stuff on the show now is anything non-political, and/or anything with Samantha Bee.

[Criminal Rock]

'Mad Money' is intended to be nothing but very light financial fare manifested through a manical entertiner of a host. Cramer's role is simply to be loud and obnoxious and throw some recommended stocksto me, and nothing else. Not exposing government scandal or condemning certain corporations for anything other than what will affect its stock price. Likewise, Stewart's a comedian, not a commentator, and using his pulpit to preach some very partisan tones is not true to the nautre of his show. Likewise, I would very much hope that Stuart Scott or Chris Berman would stick to sports and not throwing down with political treachery.

Firstly, being a good comedian and being a commentator go hand in hand-- secondly, the purpose of The Daily Show is to poke fun of/commentate on current events and politics, so to suggest that Stewart wasn't sticking to the true nature of his show simply because he wasn't being funny mischaracterizes the programs true intentions-- thirdly, the purpose of Mad Money is to give advice on the market so his viewers can make money, and the whole "loud and obnoxious" shtick is there to keep their attention while fulfilling that purpose... So I don't understand why you insist on painting Cramer's show as being some joke or light-hearted commentary on the stock market. I'm aware that his gimmicks are flippant and ridiculous [at best], but to claim the show is "very light financial fare" is, again, a misrepresentation of the truth.

It even explains what their goal is on their website...

Jim Cramer believes that there is always a bull market somewhere, and he wants to help you find it. "Mad Money" takes viewers inside the mind of one of Wall Street's most respected and successful money managers. Cramer is your personal guide through the confusing jungle of investing, navigating through both opportunities and pitfalls with one goal in mind — to help you make money. "Mad Money" features Cramer's unmatched, fiery opinions and the popular Lightning Round, in which Cramer gives his "Buy," "Sell," and "Hold" opinions on stocks to callers.

Source. (http://www.cnbc.com/id/17283246/)

You mention that CNBC's role isn't to expose illegal business practices but to simply predict market trends, a point can be made that it's incredibly difficult to accurately predict any legit market trend when they constantly ignore illegal and irresponsible business practices of companies they promote.

Lastly, I'm still not quite sure why you continue to make a big stink about Stewart being a comedian... his arguments are valid, it shouldn't matter who said them.

[Preston_79]

They are comedians. They are friends. That is why he went on the show.

Nu uh...

http://healthhabits.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/captainobvious.jpg

[Vong]

Firstly, being a good comedian and being a commentator go hand in hand-- secondly, the purpose of The Daily Show is to poke fun of/commentate on current events and politics, so to suggest that Stewart wasn't sticking to the true nature of his show simply because he wasn't being funny mischaracterizes the programs true intentions-- thirdly, the purpose of Mad Money is to give advice on the market so his viewers can make money, and the whole "loud and obnoxious" shtick is there to keep their attention while fulfilling that purpose... So I don't understand why you insist on painting Cramer's show as being some joke or light-hearted commentary on the stock market. I'm aware that his gimmicks are flippant and ridiculous [at best], but to claim the show is "very light financial fare" is, again, a misrepresentation of the truth.

It even explains what their goal is on their website...



You mention that CNBC's role isn't to expose illegal business practices but to simply predict market trends, a point can be made that it's incredibly difficult to accurately predict any legit market trend when they constantly ignore illegal and irresponsible business practices of companies they promote.

Lastly, I'm still not quite sure why you continue to make a big stink about Stewart being a comedian... his arguments are valid, it shouldn't matter who said them.

QED

[Homyrrh]

Firstly, being a good comedian and being a commentator go hand in hand-- secondly, the purpose of The Daily Show is to poke fun of/commentate on current events and politics, so to suggest that Stewart wasn't sticking to the true nature of his show simply because he wasn't being funny mischaracterizes the programs true intentions-- thirdly, the purpose of Mad Money is to give advice on the market so his viewers can make money, and the whole "loud and obnoxious" shtick is there to keep their attention while fulfilling that purpose... So I don't understand why you insist on painting Cramer's show as being some joke or light-hearted commentary on the stock market. I'm aware that his gimmicks are flippant and ridiculous [at best], but to claim the show is "very light financial fare" is, again, a misrepresentation of the truth.

It even explains what their goal is on their website...



You mention that CNBC's role isn't to expose illegal business practices but to simply predict market trends, a point can be made that it's incredibly difficult to accurately predict any legit market trend when they constantly ignore illegal and irresponsible business practices of companies they promote.

Lastly, I'm still not quite sure why you continue to make a big stink about Stewart being a comedian... his arguments are valid, it shouldn't matter who said them.
This is exactly what I had said, that Cramer is responsible for being "loud and obnoxious and throw some recommended stocks to me, and nothing else", i.e. - make me money and be theatrical while doing so. I made no mention of the entire network, CNBC, but isolated Cramer in stating that he has no responsibility to anyone to unearth impending economic doom. He is a stock expert who is paid ungodly amounts of money to pass his wisdom off on me. This is definitely "light financial fare": he tells me what to buy, why I should probably do so, but makes no mention of economic theories and forays into subprime mortgages, etc. Admittedly, he throws his own political views in on occasion, but only when it seems to apply strictly to the market.

And Stewart is definitley funny, but I think the simplest way for me to express my view is that he just plain gets carried away in voicing political stances from his comedian's chair.

[Badbird]

And Stewart is definitley funny, but I think the simplest way for me to express my view is that he just plain gets carried away in voicing political stances from his comedian's chair.

You keep using this word "comedian" as if there is one simple, concrete, be all end all definition of Comedian.

Clearly he is a political comedian.

I don't know if anyone remembers Stewart's stand up stuff from the early 1990s, but he wasn't that good at it. He's much more in his element now than he was before.

[Criminal Rock]

This is exactly what I had said, that Cramer is responsible for being "loud and obnoxious and throw some recommended stocks to me, and nothing else", i.e. - make me money and be theatrical while doing so. I made no mention of the entire network, CNBC, but isolated Cramer in stating that he has no responsibility to anyone to unearth impending economic doom. He is a stock expert who is paid ungodly amounts of money to pass his wisdom off on me. This is definitely "light financial fare": he tells me what to buy, why I should probably do so, but makes no mention of economic theories and forays into subprime mortgages, etc. Admittedly, he throws his own political views in on occasion, but only when it seems to apply strictly to the market.

And Stewart is definitley funny, but I think the simplest way for me to express my view is that he just plain gets carried away in voicing political stances from his comedian's chair.

I, along with many others, are only pointing out that Cramer should have made sure the banks, companies, and CEO's he endorsed weren't involved in any illegal and irresponsible activities, as many of them were. For instance, anyone who took his advice on which investment banks to buy stocks from (Bear Stearns, Morgan Stanley, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, and of course Wachovia), lost shit loads of money when those companies went under.

I'm not suggesting the guy was at the helm when the stock market crashed or that he knew of all the negligent doings taking place on Wall Street, but to say his show is nothing but a "light financial fare" is a total misrepresentation of the truth. For one knowing CNBC doesn't consider MAD MONEY to be that way... though more importantly, when Cramer suggests you buy into a particular company, whether it be $100 or $100,000 of your hard-earned cash, his advice is not to be taken "lightly". The only thing "light" about Cramer's show is the presentation, or entertainment part of the show, not his advice.