The buzz today is Cramer's appearance on Jon Stewart's show. I've been of two minds about this whole fooforaw, which is why I haven't blogged about it. On the one hand, I am not a fan of financial cable news (Bloomberg usually excepted). I think Jim Cramer should be illegal. Anyone who invests money based on one of these networks, or Wall Street Week, should seriously consider making themselves a ward of the court. Anyone in the business who goes on one of those shows is talking their book. If anyone has a good way to make money above and beyond broad, boring strategies like stock indices or bond funds, will not tell you about it.
On the other hand, the Jon Stewart video that touched this off was clearly misleading. I do watch these channels, not for the interview but for the tickers and the breaking financial news. And it was obvious from the clips that half of them were anchors and reporters simply quoting someone else--it's the equivalent of dinging someone for using a racial epithet in the context of discussing racial epithets.
Ultimately, I find Stewart disturbing because in some sense he's doing exactly what Cramer is--making powerful statements, and then when he gets called on him, retreating into the claim that well, you can't really expect him to act as if he were being taken seriously. Jim Cramer, whose stockpicking acumen seems slightly worse than your average monkey with a dartboard, frequently issues recommendations that people act on, then brushes off the failures with a shrug.
Jon Stewart also shapes peoples' decisions. Video is a medium with powerful claims to reality--people tend to think that if they saw it, it must be true. This makes it uniquely good at manipulating its audience with skillful editing. I'm very sympathetic to Stewart's deep critique of financial shows, but I don't think the way to go about it was to string together a bunch of very misleading clips. Nor to imply that Santelli, who has been vocally against all bailouts from the beginning, was merely frothing on the forclosure program because ordinary taxpayers were finally getting a taste of federal largesse. But Stewart carefully claims he's just an entertainer, so he has no obligation to hew to journalistic standards on things like quoting out of context.
Financial journalism isn't, as Stewart argues to Cramer over and over, entertainment. So how come Stewart acted as if it was?
« We like Obama, but not as much as we used to | Main | Ask the editors: What difference does it make to the recession if Citibank and Bank of America fail? » Cramer v. Stewart13 Mar 2009 01:43 pm TrackBackListed below are links to weblogs that reference Cramer v. Stewart:
» About (The Daily Show From) Last Night from Objectively Biased
» Jon Stewart, Jim Cramer, and the increasingly fuzzy line between news and entertainment from Another Damned Blog Comments (415)Comments on this entry have been closed. |
Today's Headlines From The Atlantic |
Do you regularly watch The Daily Show? When he's serious, he's fair on context. Other times, he's clear that he's taking things out of context for a laugh. Sadly, even when joking, he's more fair than most of cable news when it comes to context.
Can we stuff both Cramer and Stewart in a large burlap sack, and toss them into the Hudson River?
Yes, clearly a guy anchoring a comedy news show on Comedy Central is clearly as guilty of hyperbole as the main star of one of only 2 mainstream financial networks.
Fair and Balanced, arent we?
Megan, did you actually watch the full interview?
He makes it clear he's not really going after Cramer, but after the institution of financial journalism, where the need for access meant biased reporting; reporting that through complicity allowed the theft of money from my 401K (via hedge fund manipulation) to a very few hedge fund investors.
And he's right. Now that the madding crowd has caught on to the gimmick, there's actually been an uptick in stocks on bad news.
Guess he's solved that problem, after all.
Investors are, for the most part, sheep, aren't they? But from a journalistic perspective, it was the same media problem that existed in covering the build-up to the Iraq war.
The need for access creates its own problems.
Was it difficult getting up on that high horse?
"Financial journalism isn't, as Stewart argues to Cramer over and over, entertainment."
Really? If as you say:
"If anyone has a good way to make money above and beyond broad, boring strategies like stock indices or bond funds, will not tell you about it."
What else can it be?
Speaking of context, did you actually view the entire interview? Plenty of context there, still Cramer had no response to regurgitating what CEOs were lying (Cramer's framing) to financial networks, besides a mea culpa.
Bet part was how Cramer justified never calling out financial firms on huge leverages, by saying hey it gave 30% returns for 8 years.
"And it was obvious from the clips that half of them were anchors and reporters simply quoting someone else--it's the equivalent of dinging someone for using a racial epithet in the context of discussing racial epithets."
That analogy doesn't seem relevant.
Stewart's point was that you can't just quote the CEOs - you have to find independent sources and report the truth beneath the PR.
P.S. The Atlantic too can contribute to maintaining financial-journalism standards. Someone could answer the 18 questions in "Ask the Editors," for which answers were promised last weekend.
I think Megan is missing the point - what's important is what Stewart isn't saying. He's supposed to use comedy to 'speak truth to power' but he's far too invested in Obama to do that now.
Obama is litteraly shrinking before our eyes as he find governing far more vexing than campaigning.
So how does Stewart deal with the cognitive dissonance? Attack Obama's critics.
John Kerry faded in the spotlight during the '04 race. Tucker Carlson made the mistake of asking hard questions about Kerry - and Stewart gave him a similar slap.
Unless Obama starts doing a lot better, look for ever more angry pushback from Stewart.
Could a meteor have come down and killed them both? It is like a battle for douchbag of the universe.
Megan I agree with you about Crammer. If he knew anything about stocks, he would have his own fund and be making millions and not on TV. It is not just business people who talk their book, it is the hosts themselves. Maria Bartoromo talked up several stocks on her show only later to have it revealed she was heavily invested in the companies at the time, talked them up, and then sold them for a quick profit before they tanked.
People like Crammer and Bartoromo have a really loathsome effect on the society. They make it sound like any idiot can get rich playing the stock market and only suckers do things like work hard and save and live conservatively. To me people like Crammer are the pro market version of the awful philosophy that came out of the 1960s that said only suckers do real work. I really can't stand the guy or any of his ilk. The only value Bartoromo has is if she would do her show naked and Crammer for obvious reasons can't even do that.
Stewart was questioning the integrity and credibility of CNBC as a newsgathering organization. Cramer is, in a way, "the face" of CNBC and Stewart slapped him around for the cable networks' failings in financial journalism. Stewart's criticism, I thought, was in line with the overall questioning of the failings of journalism leading to the Iraq war (WMDs, uranium tubes, etc.).
"Stewart's criticism, I thought, was in line with the overall questioning of the failings of journalism leading to the Iraq war (WMDs, uranium tubes, etc.)."
Stewart does have a valid criticism. It is a criticism he could have made any time in the last five years. Only now, after Crammer comes out against BO, does Stewart chose to make it. If Crammer were still a BO supporter, Stewart would have kissed his ass. Stewart does little beyond carry water for BO. I wonder if there are any mirrors at Stewart's house and if there are if he can bear to look in them.
"Obama is litteraly shrinking before our eyes as he find governing far more vexing than campaigning."
RelyT
Is this fact or is this just conclusions based on emotion and feeling?
k1
Have to echo the sentiments of others: It's pretty clear that Megan didn't actually watch this interview.
My major problem with Stewart is this:
"Yes, clearly a guy anchoring a comedy news show on Comedy Central is clearly as guilty of hyperbole as the main star of one of only 2 mainstream financial networks."
---That would be a fine opinion if Stewart really didn't have any sway over people's perception of the news---a la "Weekend Update" or "The Onion."
I've watched The Daily Show (TDS) from the beginning---all the way back in the Craig Kilborn years. At the beginning, and running into perhaps 2002, the purpose of the show was to poke holes in the overly serious and contradictory news cycle; it was a gasser and a laugh, using real stories. And, what is more, it sought to be an equal opportunity offender, and was comedy.
Since then (2002, but could be later), the show has taken a decidedly partisan liberal slant, and has deliberately tried to shape opinion of the world. Stewart uses serious knocks and attacks for Republicans and kid glove jokes for Democrats. When the Colbert Report was spawned, it was official: Stewart and Co. are in the business of promoting their left-wing agenda.
The problem is Stewart is reporting the news to the audience, as one famous tag line of the show said, "Where more people get their news...than they probably should." He stands there and pretends to be an unbiased clown merely regurgitating the AP stories and making silly faces. But anyone witnessing his attacks on Bush, et al. sees soemthing more.
No where is this more apparent than in the interview portions, where Stewart goes off script and palpably asserts his believes and condescends to those right-wingers he doesn't agree with. Off script, he's nastier and mroe obvious.
As Megan points out, Stewart is a coward, because when confronted, he tries to hide behind the "oh, I'm just a silly comedian" routine. Except that people take hims eriously; what he mocks, they mock, and more importantly, what he does not mock, they do not mock.
Take Obama's Jeremiah Wright speech I, when he claimed he coud never disown his racist lunatic leader (which he later did....). The speech was an obvious political weasel speech. it was prime fodder.
but did Stewart mock it? No, he claimed the speech was "a politician talking to Americans like adluts about race." It was obvious that Stewart was in the tank for Obama and would now be using his agenda to push his campaign forward.
Stewart is a hypocrite, a liar, and a coward. He's a hypocrite because he decries the nasty nature of talking heads and politics (witness his famous Crossfire attack) and yet he revels in being a snippy, snarky talking head. He's a liar because when confronted with his agenda and his power, he claims he's just making fun of things and nothing more. And he's a coward because he tries to hide behind the shield of "just a comedian" and yet lobs bombs at everyone else.
I gave up on TDS long ago.
So, Megan, you say: "I think Jim Cramer should be illegal. Anyone who invests money based on one of these networks, or Wall Street Week, should seriously consider making themselves a ward of the court."
That's what Stewart was saying, so where's your beef. And I presume you can point to instances before the recent crisis where you said things like the above, and you can do the same for other serious reporters and bloggers in the finance domain? And no doubt you can point to instances of yourself and your professional serious colleagues taking these channels to task *before* a comedian did the heavy lifting?
There is a tragedy here that Shakespeare would write about if alive... that the serious media on the political side carried water for liars into the sands of Mesopotamia and the first articulation of that was by Stephen Colbert... then the same thing happened in the finance realm, and it took Jon Stewart to point it out. And one major reason (in the unedited interview) is that his 75-year-old mother got taken, while the supposedly serious reporters in finance did no research, no questioning, no anything than report what the liars in charge said, mouth conservative platitudes, hit buttons that made silly noises, and essentially shill for those they were supposed to be covering. How unsporting of Stewart to point this out and stick up for an old lady! Doesn't he understand the GAME?
K:
If you'd like to list Obama's supporters who are more impressed with Obama today than they were on inauguration day, I'll be glad to read it. The list his supporters who are less impressed would be too long to read, so I'll save you the trouble.
Basic Fact,
That is about as good of a take down of TDS and Stewart as I have ever read. Good for you for seeing Stewart for what he is.
would just like to point out Megan's fellow blogger James Fallow's blog post as an alternative take on this. Here's the headline:
The video from TheStreet.com where Cramer spoke of actions he personally took while a manager of a fund is all you need to know.
This whole thing started with Santelli. In his mini-rant about helping homeowners he said that people should educate themselves. So Stewart asked the obvious question: should we use Santelli's CNBC as a source for our financial news? And by using their words, he showed how useless and shallow their reporting was. Cramer wasn't the target, CNBC was. Cramer's just one of the loudest voices on the channel, so he took the brunt of it. Then it snowballed. But the point of the first was this: if all of these insiders didn't know what the hell was going on then how were those "uneducated" people supposed to. And in the end, should we even be listening to these people?
This is not to say Cramer is anything but a joke. Megan hit it right on the nose.
Or, as someone put it to me: "Why would you have to work if you knew how to get rich? If you knew the secret to get-rich-quick, you wouldn't tell a soul."
But Stewart is all I said he is.
"But the point of the first was this: if all of these insiders didn't know what the hell was going on then how were those "uneducated" people supposed to. And in the end, should we even be listening to these people?"
Doesn't that depend on what they say? Just because they were wrong before doesn't necessarily mean that Santelli doesn't have a point. If anything, this makes Stewart look worse. Someone on CNBC makes a popular and unconfortable point about BO and Stewart uses his show to go after the entire network. Had Santelli not gone after BO, Stewart wouldn't have done anything. That just makes Stewart look like a propaganda hack for the government.
"Financial journalism isn't, as Stewart argues to Cramer over and over, entertainment. So how come Stewart acted as if it was?"
Because this happened on "The Daily Show," which IS entertainment.
If anyone has a good way to make money above and beyond broad, boring strategies like stock indices or bond funds, THEY will not tell you about it.
Please send me $20 for editing services. Thanks in advance.
RE: "It is a criticism he could have made any time in the last five years. Only now, after Crammer comes out against BO, does Stewart chose to make it. If Crammer were still a BO supporter, Stewart would have kissed his ass. Stewart does little beyond carry water for BO."
I see your point, but this goes beyond Cramer and any lack of support for "BO." Stewart has routinely gone after cable news organizations (see CNN "Crossfire" 2004) for abandoning journalism for appointment television entertainment.
Stewart's also been critical of "BO" regularly.
I didn't get that Jon Stewart argued to Cramer that financial journalism was entertainment. In fact, that was the argument that Cramer made to Stewart as a defense of Cramer's lack of gravitas on his show.
I agree with you that Stewart shapes people's opinions, but the problem here is that most people heard only "CNBC/Cramer bad." They didn't understand the broader argument he was making. As I posted elsewhere on theatlantic.com, Stewart was arguing the same thing he was arguing at CNN's Crossfire: news networks (and all news organizations generally) should act as a public advocate...not as entertainment ("...it's not a f*%&ing game.") His secondary argument was that if you ARE merely entertainment, then you should be marketed as such. I believe that was his point when rolling the "In Cramer We Trust" ads.
There is a bigger question as to whether a news network, as opposed to other types of media, can play the role that Stewart wishes they would. But, the networks - like Stewart - have significant influence. As a result, Stewart thinks they should either own up to the role they are playing or act more responsibly.
Stewart is a comedian. Creamer claims to be your financial planner ... get a life loser
I will never read another post/blog from this moron ever again.
Honestly, this isn't a valid critique of Stewart.
He was preforming satire and making a comment when that original clip was put together; last night he was actually having a serious conversation.
I find it illuminating that you are ignoring the very real point that he was making: that CNBC was in the pocket of Wall Street. This is a channel for traders; it has a select audience and the network will not offend that audience. I think that the point Stewart made was the sheer mendacity of people on that network to not only cheerleader the country into this crisis, when clearly the clips he showed of a sober Cramer illustrate that Cramer himself knew that the prices of these stocks were out of wack but that is immaterial when you are working to make money, clearly the fourth estate let us down. Why? Because the fourth estate was in bed with the crooks of the establishment.
I've seen a lot of attempts to justify Cramer out there on the web and in media pieces: I'm thinking of Stanley at the NYT and Kurtz at WashPo. This seems to me part and parcel of the fact that no one but Katie Couric was willing to admit that the lead up to the war in Iraq was wrongly reported and deeply serious mistakes were made. The media does not tolerate criticism at all; and the status quo was shown to be hollow last night.
I watched the whole interview. That I didn't have the take on it that you wanted is not proof that I didn't watch it; we just disagreed on the relative import.
"Obama is litteraly shrinking before our eyes..."
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
I disagree with you entirely. I think the job of the news media, especially outlets as powerful as CNBC, is to go beyond what the latest press releases say, and I rarely see CNBC digging deeper than the latest announcements.
It's sorely needed, as is now evident, in business journalism.
And Cramer in particular was making predictions, not repeating what what other people say.
this is the kind of BS that passes as financial reporting. is it any wonder why this country is in a mess it has been for a long time the results of which is just hitting the fan only recently. this kind of complete rot is by no means only in financial sector. it is EVERYWHERE. this culture of corruption has been so pervasive for so long that it
will for sure bring down the whole system within the next several years.
don't blame the massenger blame the deeply ingrained culture of corruption.
I think Jim Cramer should be illegal.
Three cheers for freedom of speech!
Megan,
Ok, so you watched. How can Cramer's own words -- that as a hedge fund manager he manipulated the market, that it's legal, and it's "fun" to make money shorting -- jibe with I don't think the way to go about it was to string together a bunch of very misleading clips?
More important thing is your own place in the world of financial journalism; are you you a journalist or a mouthpiece? As I recall, you've defended the perps of this economic crisis, saying there was no fault.
At least Cramer, when put on the hot seat, admitted there were folks who should be serving time for theft.
Hum... someone clearly doesn't understand decent journalism, decent comedy, quality sarcasm and calling someone to account for being an ass but masquerading as an 'expert'. There are too many uninformed people being led on by networks and commentators who should not be anywhere near a TV studio, let along being sold as 'experts'. Buyer and watcher beware, yes maybe, but when are the networks going to assume some social responsibility? That would be nice, wouldn't it? Thank goodness for people like Stewart for bringing this practice into focus for everyone in my humble opinion.
"Stewart is a hypocrite, a liar, and a coward. He's a hypocrite because he decries the nasty nature of talking heads and politics (witness his famous Crossfire attack) and yet he revels in being a snippy, snarky talking head. He's a liar because when confronted with his agenda and his power, he claims he's just making fun of things and nothing more. And he's a coward because he tries to hide behind the shield of "just a comedian" and yet lobs bombs at everyone else."
That's a little harsh. Stewart is an entertainer who obviously leans to the left. So what? If you want someone who leans right listen to Rush or watch Fox. Or better yet watch and listen to a little of all of it and make up your own mind.
The problem is that despite having so many news outlets on television there is little, if any, of this type of serious debate about content. And it shouldn't be up to John Stewart to do this.
I do agree that the fact that TDS is now a cutting-edge voice of populism says more about what is wrong with America than it says about TDS.
Bernie Madoff is as about as despicable as a person can get without actually having people murdered, but there would still be nothing funny about deceptively using video clips of him speaking, in order to heap ridicule upon him. In fact, the more grave the offender, and I think of Cramer's, and his ilk's, offenses to be pretty grave, the more important it is for the humorous ridicule to be scrupulouslsy based in an honest reading of what actually happened. Otherwise, the heaper of ridicule for purposes of humor trivializes what is meant to be ridiculed.
This really doesn't matter when one is making fun of some show business nitwit who has a wreck of a personal life. It does matter when ridiculing people who are doing real harm. Stewart sucks.
*sigh* Why does it continually need to be pointed out the Stewart's show is a COMEDY NEWS SPOOF show on a COMEDY NETWORK, while Cramer's show is a show that puts forth SERIOUS ADVICE ABOUT FINANCES on a FINANCIAL NEWS NETWORK. They have two VERY different jobs. Stewart's job is to make you look at the day's news in a humorous light by pointing out it's ironies and foibles. Cramer's job is to offer serious financial advice in a lighthearted manner. It is not John Stewart's job to give a fair, evenhanded assessment of CNBCs accuracy. His job (and he does it well!) is to make us laugh by pointing out how rediculous things are.
You first have to watch Stewart with some regularity before you can make such broad statements as he would never attack BO, etc. etc. Because there you are DEAD WRONG and in fact, in at least five segments over the past month - two of them particularly scathing - he has slammed Obama on various things.
For you hurt little souls that are aggrieved by the bashing of Bush and Co. over the last few years - what in the world did you expect? OH PLEASE you act as though that gang didn't deserve it. I that is what you think - please find another spot on earth to live on, because there were so many actions by that crew that utterly violated American principles, it is hard to even call them American citizens.
And by the way - he did slam numerous Democrats for not having political courage throughout that period too.
So what you're saying, Megan, is that despite Stewarts repeated clarifications (and even admonitions) to Cramer that this was NOT ABOUT HIM, you still choose to think that this is pretty much about him and not CNBC and financial reporting writ large.
Okay then.
Basic Fact and other responders--not to mention the original author--miss the main point: Jon Stewart is a satirist. It is his job to make the actions of others look ridiculous. The tragedy of this whole affair is that the focus remains on the messengers while the real culprits of our national difficulties are largely ignored.
And when did Stewart make the leap from comedy (on Comedy Central) to head anchor on CNN?? Did I miss that jump? Leave the news to the newsmen and the comedy to the comedians. Those that follow Stewart (which I am one because I enjoy a good laugh at the politicians expense) know that he is a comedian and anything he says should be followed up with research and criticism and not followed to the letter because he said it and showed a video (in whatever context.)
Come on Megan, it's comedy!!
Dave: "That's a little harsh. Stewart is an entertainer who obviously leans to the left. So what?"
---Stewart's show is more than enetertainment; that's the trouble. For many people, how he takes on a news story---whether pro or con, and what angle he attacks---is how they view it. Stewart hides behind comedy, but he's no longer a comedian; he's a commentator who claims he's not a commentator.
"If you want someone who leans right listen to Rush or watch Fox. Or better yet watch and listen to a little of all of it and make up your own mind."
---Rush doesn't hide the fact that he is a conservative commentator. Stewart does. And its cowardly of him to do so. He wants all the power of a commentator without any of the guff.
"The problem is that despite having so many news outlets on television there is little, if any, of this type of serious debate about content. And it shouldn't be up to John Stewart to do this. "
---Stewart doesn't debate content; he merely makes the same snarky, talking heads attacks you hear elsewhere. He's just pretending he's not, which is disingenuous.
"I do agree that the fact that TDS is now a cutting-edge voice of populism says more about what is wrong with America than it says about TDS."
---Stewart isn't populism; he's merely the liberal hipster's favorite commentator. SWPLers and yuppies filter their world view through him. He's a left-wing mouthpiece, but can't or won't own up to it, preferring to hide behind the shield of comedy.
If he owned up to his obvious biases and what his job really is, he'd be fine. Until then, i stand by what I said: he is a hypocrite, a liar, and a coward.
The people in power knew what was happening before it happened. This was not a surprise nor a fluke. It may have been a deliberate attempt by the Bushies to take down Obama, save the economic collapse happened before the Bushies left office. Even Reagan broke the savings banks while in office.
There is no honest reportage of the news. It is all corporate sponsored advertisements and jingoisms to encourage investment in a system that systematically steals money.
Stewart's main point seemed to be -- making money with money is not a good thang? Rather make money with ideas, products and services.
And how do you demonize an admitted Snake Oil Salesman?
MM writes: "Ultimately, I find Stewart disturbing because in some sense he's doing exactly what Cramer is--making powerful statements, and then when he gets called on him, retreating into the claim that well, you can't really expect him to act as if he were being taken seriously."
Bingo. Funny that nobody ever counters with this during Stewart's "eviscerating" interviews. The hypocrisy is obvious.
Apropos of nothing, I'll also say that if Rush Limbaugh is the voice of the Republican party, then Jon Stewart is the voice of the Democratic one. If I were a Republican strategist, I'd be devising a scheme to nail this guy's dick to the ground.
Stewart crossed the line from comedian to partisan commentator long ago. He is now the Rush Limbaugh of the left. That is not an insult, but a fact.
I have to wonder if some of the people on this thread actually watch The Daily Show. "In the tank for Obama"? Give me a break. Yes, Stewart and Colbert are clearly liberals, like many other comedians. But I think it's safe to say both parties are pretty equally skewered, especially by Stewart. He's been brutal to Obama at times, such as the montage of his Bush-like rhetoric on Iraq. The point of the show is to be funny, and sometimes there's just more Republican stuff to mock.
If Stewart would just come out and say that he is a comedien who is totally leftist and has no interest in satiring anyone for any purpose beyond pushing his agenda, I wouldn't have a problem with him. It is a free country. He can do what he likes. It is his pretension that he is somehow an equal opportunity satirist or anything beyond a hack for the BO and now by extension the government that makes him so annoying.
"Why would you have to work if you knew how to get rich? If you knew the secret to get-rich-quick, you wouldn't tell a soul."
As I understand it Cramer made 100s of millions of dollars from his hedge fund. I think the key is understanding that to make 100s of millions you don't need to be right 100% of the time. You just need to be right 50.1% of the time.
Warren Buffet didn't turn 100k into 40 billion by earning returns of 100% a month he earned them by returning 1.6% per month.
Too many out there seem to forget that CNBC started this in the person of Rick Santelli who was cheered as the new hero by calling the victims of the money men, the victims of predatory lending as, the bad guys. The CNBC crowd celebrated their new "Populist", as in major league jerk, commentator. Stewart, who was for years the only one actually doing the work of the press, did what he's been doing for years, carry the load for the little guy. Cramer attacked him and he responded.
CNBC claims to be a financial news organization. We should expect a certain level of integrity, responsibility and occasionally a little reporting out of an organization that makes that claim.
Cramer on the other hand is to CNBC what Emeril Lagasse is to the Food Network. A charismatic, entertaining, marquee figure that is very effective at convincing you that you can succeed at what they do so well on television. Cramer doesn't deserve this much blame, but he certainly shouldn't duck some level of responsibility and point fingers back at Jon Stewart.
Regardless, I watch Comedy Central and Food Network to be entertained; I watch CNBC to be informed. So I hope CNBC can improve and take some responsibility, rather than force their flagship entertainer to defend this "news organization".
"As I understand it Cramer made 100s of millions of dollars from his hedge fund. I think the key is understanding that to make 100s of millions you don't need to be right 100% of the time. You just need to be right 50.1% of the time. "
Really? If that is true, why is he on TV and not living in Tuscany with 22 year old Croation super model? Why on earth would you want to waste your time bloviating on TV if you didn't have to?
Cramer averaged 25% returns per year for 18 years at his hedge fund. Maybe he was lucky, but probably not.
People don't watch his show to get stock picks. It's to learn a wall street insider's view of what goes on. It's to learn how people on wall street think about and value companies.
Stewart doesn't have Bush to whip on anymore, and finance is the easy target. Cramer is too nice to be a target, as he's not sniping at Stewart in the same way.
"...sometimes there's just more Republican stuff to mock" - Adam
That pretty much sums it up.
Megan
You sound like another financial hack that wants to blindly defend the current institutions of journalism, but in doing so, have either misunderstood the concept of journalism or just misunderstood. Dan Rather of CBS News was crucified and fired for just showing something that was just passed onto him without vetting properly - Bush dodging the draft and his Reserve duties; the NYT was excoriated and some editors fired for letting Jayson Blair plagiarize, etc., etc. Why are TV anchors now suddenly not held to that standard? Also, everyone knows that CNBC and Cramer are influencing retail investors' stock buying or is that an unknown too?
I run a hedge fund and I have to tell you that CNBC is nothing but a mouthpiece for the financial institutions and were already once castigated for being too bullish going into the DotCom bust. Obviously, they have not learned their lesson well. Their MO anymore is to parade 8 people on the screen at any one given time to shout at each other in unison - if that is good reporting Megan, you, this country and I have more problems than what stocks to buy or sell.
John Stewart hosts a show on COMEDY Central:
Satire and Comentary (Self Explanatory)
Since when did Comentary not have a bias; that's the point poindexter.
Stewart has a history of giving people in the NEWS Industry a thrashing for not doing their job of serving the needs of the American public..the truth.
Truthful journalism is sometimes our only protection from the ponzi schemers and rip-off artists that abound in financial circles.
Why do we have to watch comedians to find the truth... only when the supposed experts make their paycheck from the very people that we need to hear the truth about.
"Stewart, who was for years the only one actually doing the work of the press, did what he's been doing for years, carry the load for the little guy"
If the "little guy" is some smugh 20 something moron who just got his masters at some hate studies program, then I guess he did. Otherwise I don't see how Stewart ever carried any load for anyone beyond himself and the left. If Stewart is for the little guy, so was Marat.
Dave wrote:>>I do agree that the fact that TDS is now a cutting-edge voice of populism says more about what is wrong with America than it says about TDS.
Huh?
Comedians have always been social critics. Court Jesters who could do a mean impression of the Nobles would amuse the king and his people. Contrasting, the king can't execute the jester because the barbs are thrown at him.
Stewart is providing clear-headed commentary (which I think could go farther) as to how the media fails us. The financial failure is merely the most recent debacle. We've just come through 8 years of media kowtowing to Bush/Cheney/Rove where they went virtually unchallenged.
I'd like to see an entire network is built around the exposition of Right Wing/ Media/ financial failures, and other conspiracies.
For people BF saying that Jon Stewart doesnt admit to his clear bent, watch the third segment of yesterday's interview. He clearly says "Tell Doucheborough, this show isnt supposed to be fair".
I think you are confusing TDS with "Fair and Balanced" Fox News and, now seemingly, Megan too.
"Someone on CNBC makes a popular and unconfortable point about BO and Stewart uses his show to go after the entire network. Had Santelli not gone after BO, Stewart wouldn't have done anything."
Stewart's stance from the beginning was that "main street" is the real victim in the financial crisis. As a regular TDS viewer I've seen Stewart ask many guests why the government doesn't give bailouts to the little people with bad mortgages. Everyone laughs; it's obviously not happening. Cue Santelli ranting, calling the overmortgaged "losers." THAT's what prompted the attack on CNBC.
Somebody took $25,000.00 out of my 401k and it wasn't me. Also, I have a $350,000.00 mortgage that I used to be able to afford before all thecorporate pirates decided to bail out of the market, causing all the companies I used to do cabinets for to stop buying. I was a chump for believing billionaires would act responsibly with my money.
Adam:
"I have to wonder if some of the people on this thread actually watch The Daily Show. "In the tank for Obama"? Give me a break."
--Watch his initial reaction to the Jeremiah Wright I apology speech. That's Exhibit A.
"But I think it's safe to say both parties are pretty equally skewered, especially by Stewart."
--Absolutely not. Colbert is designed to be a right wing parody. Stewart carried water for Obama the entire election.
"He's been brutal to Obama at times, such as the montage of his Bush-like rhetoric on Iraq."
--exactly. When Obama deviates from the left- wing agenda Stewart propounds.
"The point of the show is to be funny, and sometimes there's just more Republican stuff to mock."
---That is what Stewart would have you believe. Frankly, he jumped off the deep end long ago. The point of the show know is to comment humorously in the left-wing's favor.
"We've just come through 8 years of media kowtowing to Bush/Cheney/Rove where they went virtually unchallenged."
What planet do you live on? That has to be the most rediculous statement anyone has ever uttered on here. The media hated Bush and especially starting with Katrina attacked him daily and with the coordination of a pack of wild hyenias. In contrast, they never so much as asked BO a tough question. If Stewart were what you claim he is, he would be all over the media for its love affair with BO. Instead, he is a part of that love affair.
Things to do today:
Remove McArdle from people to read list because she is obviously daft.
"Apropos of nothing, I'll also say that if Rush Limbaugh is the voice of the Republican party, then Jon Stewart is the voice of the Democratic one. If I were a Republican strategist, I'd be devising a scheme to nail this guy's dick to the ground."
Bingo, and perhaps that's why the Republicans lost power. Dean might appear on TDS to joke around, Steele has to crawl and beg forgiveness when he talks to Rush.
If you were a Republican strategist you wouldn't be smart enough to nail Stewart.
I'm an independent by the way, I wish the GOP would get it together.
And isn't John Stewart a comedian? Oh, i guess that isn't the point. It seems with all of the attention he's getting people have forgotten that.
So for the anti-Stewart people in here (seem to have Bush sympathies), now that Stewart and his silly show on basic cable have become more important than mere comedy, is he supposed to hang up his show? convert to a true news show???
Others have pointed this out, but you don't watch enough TDS if you haven't seen Stewart mocking Obama/Biden and the Dems in Congress. Is it as harsh and serious as his criticism of Bush/Cheney? No, but Obama hasn't started any pointless wars, tortured random people, installed political hacks in the DOJ...etc.
"Street.com CEO quits after Cramer’s TV flameout"
Who's laughing now?
"Street.com CEO quits after Cramer’s TV flameout"
Who's laughing now?
"Cue Santelli ranting, calling the overmortgaged "losers." THAT's what prompted the attack on CNBC."
What about the "little people" who didn't borrow over their heads, didn't try to get rich quick off the real estate market and (gasp) actually pay their bills? Where is their bailout? Stewart is a douschbag fraud.
Got to agree with the take on Stewart. He lacks any real guts and picks out target who are easy pickings because his audience is largely uninformed and predisposed to disliking the subjects of his humor. It'd be nice to see him go after Obama in the same way for picking Geitner as the Secretary of the Treasury as Geitner was a major player in many of the decisions last fall ( e.g.forcing LEH into bankruptcy) and of course missed the boat on the impending crisis as well. But Jon has an audience that is largely enamored with the personality and charisma of the president so he'll hide behind his usual nonsense that he is an entertainer.
I find Stewart disturbing because in some sense he's doing exactly what Cramer is--making powerful statements, and then when he gets called on him, retreating into the claim that well, you can't really expect him to act as if he were being taken seriously.
I find Stewart more than disturbing, he's annoying and unwatchable for just that reason. He runs a program that presents news with a comedic bent. People watch it because it's funny, but they also watch it to get the news. Stewart knows this, plays to it. But every time he gets called on his bull, he pulls out the "it's a comedy show" routine.
No, it's not a comedy show. It's a news show with a comedy angle and Stewart knows it.
"it's comedy. it's comedy. it's comedy." that's all people say as if that means anything.
just because you're laughing doesn't mean that serious work wasn't put into it. writing comedy is very hard to do. it looks easy, sure, but it isn't.
and any attitude that suggests that comedy is somehow lacking in seriousness only highlights the speakers inherent bias.
John writes: "People like Crammer and Bartoromo have a really loathsome effect on the society."
I don't know about that; Bartiromo has a very stimulative effect on my libido, and I suspect that I'm not the only one.
Those "clearly misleading" clips proved Cramer is a criminal. The fact that the right wingers support that says a lot. Stewart is a straight shooter. He can't help it that facts have a liberal bias.
"Obama is litteraly shrinking before our eyes as he find governing far more vexing than campaigning."
RelyT
---
Sure. Believe that. Whatever makes you feel better.
Basic Fact,
I whole heartedly agree with John when he said:
"That is about as good of a take down of TDS and Stewart as I have ever read. Good for you for seeing Stewart for what he is. "
BRAVO!! You perfectly articulated what I've always known about John Stewart and his show.....
Thank you...
It's amazing to see how people argue that Stewart is isn't partisan by saying that only the Republicans do anything seriously wrong.
Or even more ridiculously, that Stewart was the voice in the wilderness during the long, terrible, Bush years.
Not so incidentally, the only way I think people could get such an impression is by watching Stewart's show, and Stewart's show only.
"Huh?
Comedians have always been social critics. Court Jesters who could do a mean impression of the Nobles would amuse the king and his people. Contrasting, the king can't execute the jester because the barbs are thrown at him."
Yeah, but I was hoping that we'd moved beyond the whole monarchy thing. I'm not saying that Stewart's role isn't valid, I'm just saying that he shouldn't be the loudest voice driving this debate right now.
Basic fact, I don't agree with you, but I can see what you mean. It isn't Stewart's fault that there are so many idiots that can't recognize his work as satire. I do give him credit for going out of his way to point out that he's just a guy doing a goofy show on the Comedy Network.
Jon:
"He clearly says "Tell Doucheborough, this show isnt supposed to be fair"."
---First, that quote is no admission to bias, just that he is unfair.
Second, Stewart has long argued that he is unbiased and just attacking what is out there.
Third, he crossed the rubicon of going to be a left-wing agenda pusher long ago.
"If the "little guy" is some smugh 20 something moron who just got his masters at some hate studies program, then I guess he did. Otherwise I don't see how Stewart ever carried any load for anyone beyond himself and the left. If Stewart is for the little guy, so was Marat."
John, you attack a person and a satirical fake news show for some perceived (and justified perceptions) of bias.
However, it is hard to take you seriously when you show such obvious bias yourself. It appears that you have some obvious disdain for people who attend a higher institution of learning.
I'll admit I'm liberal-leaning, and I do watch TDS and Colbert quite often. I do not get my news from such places. They are popular in my age group of 18-24 year-olds because they keep us from becoming too cynical and disillusioned with the world and politics.
Stewart provides a service when he attacks not only Republicans, but Democrats. Liberals and Conservatives alike are quite often eviscerated, and justly so.
Anyone who watches The Daily Show and actually comprehends the point of the show understands that Stewart is providing only one facet of a multi-sided paradox: news as entertainment cannot function as news. By expounding this paradox on his show by mocking the news and the people in the news, he creates an atmosphere in which it becomes obvious that news as entertainment can only either be condemned or laughed at. Thus, he is the satirist, the court jester, and the one who brings reality to fantasy.
You can disagree with his views and mine all you want. Please, feel free to demonize college students in liberal arts programs such as myself because for whichever reason you see fit.
However, don't ask me to take you seriously when you have such an obvious bias.
Next I expect you to quote Michael Crichton: "Everyone has an agenda, except me."
Laughable.
But Stewart is all I said he is.
Posted by Basic Fact | March 13, 2009 2:48 PM
Ah, no.
Because literally nothing is what you - the self-appointed right-wing mouthpiece of Asymmetrical Information - say it is.
I think you should reexamine your view on Stewart. He does us all a service here. This is the kind of message that no one will say and everyone knows. evidence is quite clear and in context in my mind, especially if you watch the extended version. CNBC is able to get guests because they know that they won't be subjected to scrutiny. It is talk-show-like because come on their shows and deliver their message without sufficient scrutiny. It's true that hedge funds / short sellers can make a killing at the expense of us all. Stewart does us all a great service.
"Others have pointed this out, but you don't watch enough TDS if you haven't seen Stewart mocking Obama/Biden and the Dems in Congress. Is it as harsh and serious as his criticism of Bush/Cheney? No, but Obama hasn't started any pointless wars, tortured random people, installed political hacks in the DOJ...etc."
No he has just continued all of the anti-terror policies you people claim to hate, isn't pulling out of Iraq until 2011 at the earliest, is escalating the war in Afghanistan, is giving away trillions of dollars to failed banks, signed a stimulus bill with 1000s of ear marks after promising to end them, has a Treasury secretary who is a national joke, and is running up trillions of dollars in debt our children will have to pay all the while claiming that he will cut the budget deficit some day. No, there is nothing there to parody or make fun of BO at all. Nothing at all. The only thing I have seen Stewart say about BO was that he could parody him for being so smart and so competent, you know like he is Jesus or something.
You really don't type the whole "Stewart really goes after BO" with a straight face do you?
Financial journalism shouldn't be entertainment. It should be accurate, fair, balanced and unbiased. I applaud John Stewart for pointing out the fact that CNBC has none of those qualities. As Stewart says his show and Cramer's shows are both snake oil but Stewart admits it up front. I think he has performed a public service in spite of himself.
Dave, Stewart can keep saying "I'm not partisan" all he wants, but his actions speak otherwise.
He reminds of a bully in a schoolyard who keeps punching a kid and going, "I"m not hitting you."
"It isn't Stewart's fault that there are so many idiots that can't recognize his work as satire. "
---Stewart's satire is pointed, and made to further a left-wing POV. Just because it's satire doesn't mean it doesn't have a goal.
I watched the whole interview. That I didn't have the take on it that you wanted is not proof that I didn't watch it; we just disagreed on the relative import.
Posted by Megan McArdle | March 13, 2009 3:01 PM
The fact that you pretty much share Basic Fact's take on John Stewart tells me all I need to know about the value of your take. Shilling for the financial industry has been one of your hallmarks for years, but this post really is classic.
"Really? If that is true, why is he on TV and not living in Tuscany with 22 year old Croation super model? Why on earth would you want to waste your time bloviating on TV if you didn't have to?"
I think he thinks it's fun. According to Business Week he's worth about $100 million.
From what I can gather he's a bit of a workaholic and needs something to keep himself busy.
"Stewart's satire is pointed, and made to further a left-wing POV. Just because it's satire doesn't mean it doesn't have a goal."
Exactly. If he would just say that, I could respect him. Instead, he tries to claim that his goal is to point out the hypocrisy and rediculousness of the media, which I think really was the goal of the show when it started. Of course, Stewart totally missed the biggest media story of the decade. Stewart never once went after the media for its slobberfest over BO. Never pointed out their hypocrisy and refusal to vet him. To do that would have meant not carrying water for BO and Stewart will never do that.
Alot of us over 60 like Jon Stewart too. He kind of reminds of of what it was like years ago with an actual working press around.
"He reminds of a bully in a schoolyard who keeps punching a kid and going, "I"m not hitting you.""
He certainly looked like a bully last night, but that's only because Cramer was such a wimp. Cramer talked a big game on the Today Show, Morning Joe, and with Martha Stewart. He got the chance to face Stewart and he folded.
"---Stewart's satire is pointed, and made to further a left-wing POV. Just because it's satire doesn't mean it doesn't have a goal."
So what? Sean Hannity has a goal, Phil Donahue has a goal, they just aren't very funny or entertaining.
JMO,
I stand corrected. I have to admit I have more respect for the guy if he in fact did make a lot of money on the stock market.
This is the problem with modern bias in the media: liberals can't own up to it, because to them, a liberally biased story is "just true." Most news has been left-wing biased for so long, it is knee jerk in them to just think liberal=true.
Few liberals here will never admit Stewart is biased or has an agenda, or that he is more than a mere commentator at this point, because to do so would force them to step outside themselves and admit that liberal does not equal true.
this is also why most liberals don't understand why everyone doesn't think NPR is the greatest radio evah.
Meanwhile, to survey Stewart's fans, you would find, I'm betting, more than 70% claim to be liberal.
"No, it's not a comedy show. It's a news show with a comedy angle and Stewart knows it."
I would say it's a news show masquerading as a comedy show masquerading as a news show.
As for a Republican strategy to nail Stewart, you'd just have to make the case that his frivolous attitude merely parrots that of the Democratic Party. Republicans need to get back to painting themselves as the boring but serious party of realists.
Basic Fact is right.
John Stewart is a bully. His show was the most unfair thing I've seen since Katy Couric's shameless interview with Sara Palin. Totally unfair and biased. CNBC is the best business channel we have in America and they have done the best hard-hitting business journalism this country has ever seen. CEOs who go know they are going to get grilled.
CNBC drills down to the truth.
"Alot of us over 60 like Jon Stewart too. He kind of reminds of of what it was like years ago with an actual working press around."
Don, he is just a comedian. You are not supposed to take him seriously.
Dave, I'm not really arguing with you, but some people here are saying he isn't biased. He clearly is.
The other problem is:
Hannity is openly a commentator, but Stewart claims he's just clowning around and isn't seriously pushing an agenda. THAT's the part I find disconcerting.
You are right, Basic Fact, but to take it further, Steward doesn't have the cojones to stand up for his point of view. People can hate Limbaugh but he doesn't run from the fight by whining like Jonnie boy does and claiming to be an entertainer even though his stuff is often hyberbolic.
This blog has become an anacronism for a serious problem that makes comedy so necessary. We, as americans don't seem to care for eachother very much.....we prefer to choose sides and even when the basic precepts of each side turn 180 degrees we hang on to the hatred for "those other guys".
Comedy flourishes where the discourse seems to have no rational endpoint. A laugh is sometimes the only solution to utter frustration.
Hats off to ALL the "John Stewarts" out there right or left, liberal and conservative.
WE NEED YOU!
My all-time favorite piece of satire is "Dr. Strangelove". The screenplay would be far less amusing if the George C. Scott character had been named "Curtis Lemay", instead of "Buck Turgidson", because as nuts as the real Lemay was, he wasn't in the way the Turgidson character was, and people would have known that, thus robbing the dialogue of quite a bit of humor.
The irony here is that Stewart's humor in large part depends on his audience's ignorance. If you know Stewart is using his clips deceptively, and how they are being used deceptively, the humor dissipates quite a bit. The same was true of people from the right who used to skewer Al Gore via deceptive use of clips. Satire, if it's effect is to be maximized, should either stick to wholesale, obvious, fiction, like Will Ferrell doing his very funny George W. Bush, or be scrupulously rooted in an honest reading of events. Again, Stewart sucks, at least if you are well-informed.
BF, Stewart hides the fact that he's a conservative commentator? He's really good, because I don't know anyone who thinks he's conservative.
Liberals aren't hiding behind Stewart, he just happens to be doing a better job at pointing out how the media has been not doing their jobs better than anyone else. He's doing to the media what they should be doing to those in power: He and his team are doing research to make their point. If reporters would do that kind of work, he would be back on the comedy circuit.
And yes, he does go after Obama. All of this has quickly validated the statement "Liberals use comedy to go after those in power; Conservatives use comedy to go after Liberals."
"You are right, Basic Fact, but to take it further, Steward doesn't have the cojones to stand up for his point of view. People can hate Limbaugh but he doesn't run from the fight by whining like Jonnie boy does and claiming to be an entertainer even though his stuff is often hyberbolic."
You're kidding, righ? When was the last time Rush engaged in a fair and open debate? Let me check... never.
I actually agree with Rush on a wide range of issues, but he is a coward.
i didn't laugh one bit during those clips. I just shook my fist at the tv and said, "John Stewart is a meanie!"
Stacy,
If you haven't followed the thread no one is denying he is a comedian. He obviously is, and is sometimes pretty funny.
But, he also hides behind comedy to paint the world he would like to see it which is easily 80% partisan. Yes, he has hit back at Obama a couple times, but usually pretty lightly.
To the people who think Stewart is -just- a comedian and nothing else, ask yourself this. Do you ever agree with the message or meaning behind his outtake on things?
I think the answer is pretty clearly YES for a lot of people. I've met plenty of people who have a "it's funny cause its true" belief about most of the skits. Which implies it is not only comedy, but also social or political commentary.
I agree with the comparison to Rush, along with the others who said he's different than Rush as well. We know where Rush stands. We all know where Stewart stands, but he passes himself off as an equal opportunity comedian, when he is really a political entertainer who beats up one side 5x more than the other.
But I really don't watch the show for more than 10 minutes because I recognize that. Just like I don't listen to Rush (unless I'm on a dirt road somewhere and board out of my mind) because I recognize that Rush is always ready to go after any Dem he can, for whatever reason.
But at least Rush will flat out tell his viewers day in and day out that he wants the Repubs in power. Stewart just hides behind smarmy faces...
John, he's more like Edward R Maurow and Walter Cronkite than any of the "news readers" and Rupert Murdock stooges. I've been watching him since I was only in my 50's.
That is really true Will Allen. Come to think of it, Hollywood couldn't make a movie like Dr. Strangelove today. They would be too heavy handed with it and step on their own jokes. They would try to make it too close to real people in the way you describe. I think your posts acurately sums up why I don't think Stewart is funny. It is not his point of view. There are lots of very funny left wing comics and movies. Stewart is just not one of them.
stewart weaves the truth in and out of his
comedy routine and expects you to get lost
in the rhetoric.
coming through in the end with
something further to believe in and be taken
advantage of..freedom of speech ...with no consequences of course,cause we were just kidding
comedy about facts is easy to follow(sometimes)
but this seems to be facts with comedy injected
people DO follow his lead and where did it lead
them last you might ask?,to the democratic polls!!
don't be the easy prey they assume you to be.
I keep reading the refrain that the clips Jon Stewart used in this episode were misleading. I'd like to know how so? I saw nothing misleading other than the content, in the sense that Cramer clearly made (and possibly makes) a very good living from intentionally misleading. Of course he now has a national stage to mislead from.
a comedian with a point of view?! shock! horror!
if you don't have a point of view, you'll have a very short life as comic.
These responses are a riot. Great theatre. This whole thread might be placed in a time capsule for how funny it really is......... to be seen in a hundred years.
Hamilton, I feel that way about Stewart. I don't know about Rush never running from a fight, but he's certainly very open that his opinion is conservative and that he views the world froma conservative point of view.
anovent, I don't think I ever said Stewart is conservative, I said he was liberal. If I did I miswrote, because I've been consistently arguing here that he is a leftwonger.
Stewart clearly wanted Obama elected and got him there. His relentless attacks on Bush in the past 6-7 years have been beyond the pale of "just making fun" or "being nonpartisan." His criticism of the left pale in comparison to his attacks on the right.
he's not doing the media's job, he's just being a liberal commentator, which many liberals mistake for "being right" because liberals cannot separate their beliefs from facts.
He may attack Obama/Dems now, but it will be for not being Stewart's brand of liberalism. And most certainly he'll be all over Republicans obstructing Obama's liberal agenda.
Didn't Cramer say he voted for Obama?
"Few liberals here will never admit Stewart is biased or has an agenda, or that he is more than a mere commentator at this point, because to do so would force them to step outside themselves and admit that liberal does not equal true."
Basic Fact, how can you presume to speak for liberals? I just pretty much said that we know he's a liberal.
See, people are attracted to things that support their views or opinions. Conservatives like Limbaugh, Hannity, or Coulter. Liberals like Olbermann, Stewart, and Colbert. They all provide the same service, and to make an argument in which you attack these nameless "liberals" for not admitting something they'd be only too happy to admit is pretty shameless.
"Meanwhile, to survey Stewart's fans, you would find, I'm betting, more than 70% claim to be liberal. "
Basic Fact, this is quite obvious. Why does it matter? What kind of point are you making? That this sort of viewership is bad for...something? Is it because someone doesn't agree with your points that they are moronic or don't "get it?"
I have a great respect for the conservative viewpoint. My life experiences so far have made me prefer liberalism. That may change, someday. But to assume that you can create a general cookie-cutter straw-man argument based on a faceless audience to try to further you obvious point of bias in a fake news show seems disingenuous to me.
your all one big mess... you are all arguing about a coomedy central new show taking on CNBC financial program. who cares? its obvious on a daily basis that you should not overyl watch these shows, or base your advice on them especially when it comes to finance. obviously theres a majority of people who still dont realize this and stewart is calling out the stations for still taking advantage of those people and not excusing themselfes for their mistakes but instead leaving the heat on their show's host. you all need to bite on a chill pill... stewarts a comedian trying to point out some right because obviously no1 else really is.
Bottom line...Jon Stewart was all bent out of shape because Cramer and others had the nerve to criticize our "dear, precious", anointed one... This is just proof that the left will go after anyone who merely expresses an OPINION that does not give glowing reviews of BARRACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, and his socialist agenda! The left, such as Jon Stewart, are nothing more than jack-booted thugs who essentially scream down voices of dissent. The laughable comment was when Jon Stewart chastised Cramer, I paraphrase..."finance is not a joke..." What Cramer should have thrown right back at him is...neither is the WAR on Terror...the state of the economy...and all of the other things he bashes republicans for on a daily basis?!?!? Someone needs to tell that moron...Jon Stewart...that if these things are no laughing matter, then...GET OUT OF THE BUSINESS!!! Stop producing your stupid show. The sad thing is that the majority of his viewership gets the news from him...and guess who they voted for....
If there were nothing to what Stewart was saying, then he wouldn't have been able to shame Cramer, would he?
Only once or twice did Cramer try to fault Stewart's presentation. For the most part, Cramer was apologetic and very much on the defensive. What does that tell you?
Basic Fact: I'm liberal, proud of it, and I admit Stewart is biased and has an agenda.
His bias is toward a free press that funtions as a watchdog. His agenda is to reveal when it fails, and to be funny about it in the process.
And according to a PEW study before the 2004 elections, his regular watches were better informed on current events then people who watched FOX news all day long.
Perhaps that's your problem? A bit too much Hannity in your day?
But you're real shortcoming isn't your bias, it's your inability to understand that being liberal doesn't mean you swallow the whole agenda of liberalism; hence the history of fractured interests in the Democratic Party. The tendency to swallow the whole agenda seems to be more of a Republican trait, where top-down politics are typical. And right now, without a clear head of the party, the GOP flails around like a chicken that's just been decapitated. You see the party that believes in trickle-down economics also practices trickle-down politics. And as a liberal, I think that's unpatriotic.
You called things right, you just didn't look in the mirror and say it to yourself instead of us liberals.
face up to it. stewart and the people around him are extremely smart. which is why their stuff is often so good and spot on.
i'm sensing a little right-of-center envy at what he's able to pull off. i'd love to see some right wing comics.
i seem to recall fox taking a stab at a daily show type vehicle. i also seem to recall that is was godawful.
To focus on Cramer's stock-picking ability is, I think, to miss the point. As I have noted elsewhere ("More Obama Supporters Concerned by the President's Recent Actions"), Cramer is only one of several Obama supporters who have criticized Obama on his handling of the economy recently. Warren Buffett and Stewart Taylor (of the National Journal), for example, have made essentially the same criticism that Cramer has: in an economic emergency, the president's primary focus ought to be dealing with that emergency, not trying to enact other policy priorities.
Cramer is getting the heat because he's the easiest target.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96TBKH85&show_article=1
Yes, it's obvious the show is a LOT more than just comedy to anyone with a brain. Why is Obama's spokesman watching it otherwise? Does he also follow-up on every other comedian? Does he just enjoy a good laugh?
NO. He's watching it because he understands a few million voters watch it and it heavily influences or reinforces their political viewpoint.
Zic:
"And according to a PEW study before the 2004 elections, his regular watches were better informed on current events then people who watched FOX news all day long."
---Yes, and according to the Pew Study, Rush listeners were just as informed.
My criticism has been 3 fold: 1) hypocrite, because he is just as much a snarky talking head as he criticizes; 2) liar, because he claims to be unbiased and non-agenda driven and "just making jokes"; and 3) cowardly, because he is a commentator who tries to hide behind the "just a comedian" shield whilst lobbing his bombs.
My criticisms are valid.
"His bias is toward a free press that funtions as a watchdog. His agenda is to reveal when it fails, and to be funny about it in the process."
But the only failures of the watchdog function of the media Stewart ever points out involve the media's failure to be as hard on Republicans as Stewart would like them to be. It never involves watchdogging Democrats. If it were up to Stewart, we would have a state run media that only questioned the government when Republicans were in charge and spent their time going after Republicans when Dems were in charge. Stewart is a facsist little fuck who has interest in informed debate or giving anyone not toeing the party line a fair say.
Do you think that Will Rodgers was a "Leftie"?
He regularly pulled his comedy commentary from the most used media of the day.
I'm pretty sure that his comments had a bias.
We could dig him up and see if we could do some damage to his image. What do you think?
-OR-
We could losten a sphincter and take comedy commentary for what it is, and choose to either watch it or not.
It seems that some protest so loudly over a comedy routine that they could just turn off if it was too biased for them.
Stewart's ratings seem to be doing pretty well though....maybe they will have to something more hateful and agressive to stop this left leaning comedian.
brooklynite,
Who denies they are very smart? And witty? And insightful?
I don't. I also don't deny that they are quite often dead wrong.
Megan,
It's said that you had to jump back into this conversation to confirm that you'd actually watched the show, but that's not reflected in what you've written. You described both men and what they do, but none of the content of what was said, which purported to be the focus of your column.
Putting aside the anger and text-based theatrics above, what's your take on what actually was said on The Daily Show between these two men?
also, liberals are afraid to laugh at themselves.
hence, the great Will Rogers can say, "I don't belong to any organized party, I'm a Democrat."
hey dave.... y dont you go suck mccaign's dick. im sure your used to having republican meat in your mouth.
As Stewart made very clear when Cramer attempted to hide behind being an entertainer:
"It's not a f***ing game."
Cramer and his ilk are selling their expertise to an audience made much poorer for their gullibility, and Stewart was merely pointing out the LEAST they could do is make clear they're NOT gods, they're not oracles, and they're NOT to be taken seriously if they are entertainers.
Jim, it is not just a comedy routine any longer. Stewart is a full-blown left wing commentator, but denying it. It's disinggenuous and misleading.
Cramer and his ilk are selling their expertise to an audience made much poorer for their gullibility, and Stewart was merely pointing out the LEAST they could do is make clear they're NOT gods, they're not oracles, and they're NOT to be taken seriously if they are entertainers.
In the midst of discussion in which numerous posters have treated Stewart like a saint, maybe Stewart should apply his words to himself.
"they're NOT to be taken seriously if they are entertainers."
So why should we, or anyone for that matter, take Stewart's criticism seriously then?
....No one is losing their retirement money because they took *Stewart* seriously!
Again!
The channel is COMEDY Central.
Not Financial NEWS Central.
John Stewart will not attempt to sell you a used car.....Laughter comes from the absurdety of contrary statements.
Take a breath and relax.
"
Financial journalism isn't, as Stewart argues to Cramer over and over, entertainment."
That statement is false. Jim Cramer's job is exactly the same as John Stewart's - to stay on air. Media, be it 'journalism' or 'entertainment' is all entertainment. 'Journalism is a completely subjective term. Thus do half your commenters call The New York Times a partisan rag sheet, half of young adults get their 'news' from the Daily Show and you, Ms McArdle, call your blog 'financial journalism'. You're an entertainer no less so that Mr. Cramer and Mr. Stewart.
If you want factual news, read the AP wire. If you want un-biased, always spot on, never misleading news, move to fantasy land.
Also, for the record, Jim Cramer's stock advice is, in truth, not much better or worse than the typical professional stock broker. Anyone who's owned stocks and viewed disappointing returns after a period of time will question whether they would have been better off with a monkey throwing darts. At least Jim Cramer's advice is free. And he's entertaining.
jon stewart has NEVER claimed to be unbiased. he was quite obviously supporting john kerry and barack obama in the last two elections. the idea that he should fairly dole out criticism to both the left and right is idiotic. it's his show, and he can craft it as he sees fit. keep in mind, that the party in power was Republican 8 years. the bush administration gave TDS plenty of material. obama's been here for not even two months. anyone who watches TDS regularly will know that he quite often criticizes the cowardice of the Democrats in Congress, most notably Harry Reid. He's also had several liberal writers on the show that he's called to question.
The point here is not even Democratic vs. Republican. Isn't Jim Cramer a Democrat? Jon Stewart throughout this crisis and during the election has skewered the cable news networks and mainstream media for their failure to educate the general public. Stephen Colbert in his infamous Washington Correspondents Dinner address did the same kind of satire when he called out journalists for failing to even attempt to illuminate the truth when the consequence was war. The Stewart/Colbert team are the only ones calling out the media in such a publicized way, so I for one applaud them for it. Maybe now the news networks will shape up and do what they're actually supposed to do: NEWS not ENTERTAINMENT.
Define a fair and open debate, Dave. Have we had one of those in recent years where real intelligent discussion and probing follow-up questions are permitted? If that's your standard then there's a long line of cowards and the telepromptee in chief is at or near the head. And even were I to concede your point, it still wouldn't detract from my point that Stewart is essentially a coward who hides behind a veneer of "entertainment" when he is called out for inaccurate and misleading use of people's words.
Staash, well done.
People, you can't on one hand belove Stewart because of his hole punching and then on the other try to dismiss any bias as his being "just a comedian."
Whoever thinks Stewart is "carrying water" for the current President obviously hasn't watched TDS for the last few weeks. He's spent some time on some very cringeworthy things.
I personally find Stewart an amusing satirist who is up-front about his biases.
Come on man, the video, the friggin video clips! Kramer was not quoting CEO's in those clips. He was giving financial advice on how to side-step SEC regulations. Maybe watch the interview again with the sound on? If those were out-of-context quotes then why didn't Kramer defend himself. He instead became sheepish with the realization that he could not talk himself out of this evidence. I can't believe my google RSS feed led me to this page. Watch the interview dude.
...well, given that Obama has such a terrible effect on the markets, I think that statement is arguable.
Basic Fact you are clearly letting your political bias blind you.
"signed a stimulus bill with 1000s of ear marks after promising to end them"
Um maybe you didn't watch the Daily Show the night before, but he ripped on BO for that very thing.
Secondly as far as Stewart being a coward for hiding behind comedy and people looking to the Daily Show for actual news, that is not his fault. His show, even though it is a comedy, happens to have more content than actual news because the actual news is so terrible.
If the real news media would step up and actually do their jobs then people wouldn't watch The Daily Show for news. The sad state of affairs is that the news media is of such low quality that we have to look towards a comedy show to provide us news.
Yes Jon Stewart is a liberal, no one is denying that. Yes he is biased, he admits it on his show all the time. Please name me the episode when he said he was an "equal opportunity" offender.
Also the idea that he attacked CNBC because they attacked BO is ridiculous. It was clearly because of the hypocritical attack on over-leveraged homeowners by over-leveraged bankers.
Joy, quite the opposite: Stewart has denied bias repeatedly over years, or tried to minimize it. It's cowardly.
Basic Fact,
Instead of continuing with your emotional onslaught of ad hominem attacks can you please reference a single episode where he denied being biased?
"jon stewart has NEVER claimed to be unbiased. he was quite obviously supporting john kerry and barack obama in the last two elections. the idea that he should fairly dole out criticism to both the left and right is idiotic. it's his show, and he can craft it as he sees fit."
True enough. Then people ought to ignore him and call him the douschbag that he is. Stop trying to claim he is anything beyond a clown and that he ever says anything worth listening to beyond its comedy value and the rest of us will stop picking on him. As you claim him to be something beyond a comediane and someone who has something serious to say beyond just laughs, then people can and should call out his bullshit.
Let's see....
Over-Leveraged Bankers
pissing on
Over-Leveraged Homeowners
Equals
An Absurd Situation
This just might be fodder for those "Leftie" comedy shows.
This is genius........maybe GE can make some money with this!
I actually enjoy the show and have for years, but his "I'm just a comedian" argument is ridiculous when he's perhaps the most influental liberal commentator out there. And the way he hurls harsh insults like a turtle peeking out of his shell, then quickly retreats/softens the blow with a self-deprecative joke -- really comes across as cowardly.
And if Rush Limbaugh is the Elephant, then Stewart is clearly the Donkey.
Graham, I woudl argue the same for you:
Stewart "rips" BO when BO deviates from Stewart's liberal agenda. And he'll take 5x as many shots at the Republicans who oppose him. He's now picking fights with Jim Cramer instead of making fun of Obama's stimulus package...why?
"Secondly as far as Stewart being a coward for hiding behind comedy and people looking to the Daily Show for actual news, that is not his fault."
---um, no, it is. He could easily come out and say, regularly, as Rush does, that he is a biased commentator for a liberal agenda. He does nto, and infact denied it all.
"His show, even though it is a comedy, happens to have more content than actual news because the actual news is so terrible. "
--Previously, as I stated, the show was much more about poking fun, not servicing an agenda.
"If the real news media would step up and actually do their jobs then people wouldn't watch The Daily Show for news. The sad state of affairs is that the news media is of such low quality that we have to look towards a comedy show to provide us news."
---more precisely, liberals need a commentator like stewart to view the world through.
"Yes Jon Stewart is a liberal, no one is denying that. Yes he is biased, he admits it on his show all the time. Please name me the episode when he said he was an "equal opportunity" offender."
--he has often said, "People call us a liberal show, but we really go after everybody."
Please point out where Stewart says this is a liberal show, and I am liberal commentator.
And Stewart himself has denied his bias.
Honestly, wishing Stewart=Cronkite is ridiculous.
"If the real news media would step up and actually do their jobs then people wouldn't watch The Daily Show for news. The sad state of affairs is that the news media is of such low quality that we have to look towards a comedy show to provide us news."
You say that but what exactly do you learn from a clown's show that you can't learn by watching hte news? What big story has Stewart ever broke? I fail to see how the media's failures arise from them not being left wing enough and not engaging in enough hyperbole and snark.
Jon Stewart's Daily Show is on Comedy Central. Even the channel name says it all. It's only barely more accurate than The Onion. If people take either of them seriously, then they probably have no sense of humor.
thank you, Laputan.
Liberals here are having this knee jerk defense of their hero. Either "It's just a comdey show, get over it" and ignoring his commentator-like status, or else they deny any bias.
It's funny to watch tjhe two groups talk over each other and BOTH try to fight with me.
Stewart said:
"I understand that you want to make finance entertaining, but it's not a fucking game."
Hm. I understand that Stewart wants to make Politics, current events and other news entertaining, but they aren't games either.
He wants to stand up and say serious things, and then stand down and say it's only comedy when people respond.
This was true with Tucker Carlson and Crossfire. He goes on the show and tells them to "Stop hurting America" accuses them of selling out to "politicans and corporations" but then, a few exchanges later, mocks them for looking to Comedy Central for integrity.
Uh, what? Wasn't *he* just demanding that they do that? Wasn't *he* just telling them they need integrity?
This is the Stewart bait and switch. He makes a left-wing critique as bait, and then when people attempt to disagree with him or actually argue over it, he suddenly becomes a comedian again. He's just the guy with a show before crank-calling puppets.
Well, ok, but then why are you critiquing them to begin with? And why can't they defend themselves?
Stewart asks that you take him seriously, and then mocks you for doing so. It's self-criticism that his fans are completely blind to because they enjoy his irony. His fans feel great that they can recognize and appreciate the irony; they're in on the joke.
Too bad they're not informed enough to know the joke's on them.
mgd, clearly you'll never admit to it no matter how much evidence is presented before you, so long as Stewart denies it.
"Jon Stewart's Daily Show is on Comedy Central. Even the channel name says it all. It's only barely more accurate than The Onion. If people take either of them seriously, then they probably have no sense of humor."
The Onion is pretty left wing and generally makes fun of Republicans more than it does Democrats. Yet, I don't know one Republican who doesn't like the Onion or is offended by it. In contrast, I don't know one non-liberal who doesn't think Stewart is a douschbag. Why? Because Stewart is an opinionated jerk who hides behind comedy to rake his political adversaries and The Onion is a satire.
"And the way he hurls harsh insults like a turtle peeking out of his shell, then quickly retreats/softens the blow with a self-deprecative joke -- really comes across as cowardly."
That's a pretty good description of Stewart's shtick. The shell is "I'm just an entertainer! A comedian on Comedy Central". Personally, I look forward to the day when someone smart enough and ballsy enough smashes it with a ten ton hammer.
We'll see if that manages to make the front page of dig and the top headline at HuffPost.
Jon Stewart was dead on. Cramer was surprisingly meeker than I expected. Stewart seemed to be saying, this is serious stuff and yeah we make fun of it, but you have an obligation to really report real news and be a leader in financial reporting and you guys blew it big time. In fact, Stewart argued, you are almost colluding with these banks that pulled off these horrible and perhaps criminal acts and now people are hurting badly because CNBC reacted as you did. I thought Stewart was clear and actually seemed really pissed off at Cramer. I thought the tape he pulled from two years ago was almost unfair, he could have found more stuff recently and he could have given Cramer more time to talk, but again, Cramer never seized any moment. It shows again how sometimes the Daily Show does what no real news organization does and they do it very well.
Glorious, well said.
No, no...I'm pretty sure that Jon is up front about being liberal. But, what do I know? I've only seen him saying that several times a week for the past decade. Surely you're not as ignorant as to think anybody watching him take liberal stance after liberal stance on every issue, that he is trying to be deceptive. Is he a liberal? Is he a conservative? Who knows??? Give me a break. He doesn't try to hide it.
But Stewart carefully claims he's just an entertainer, so he has no obligation to hew to journalistic standards on things like quoting out of context.
And yet he adheres to them to a greater extent then people like Cramer do. Which somehow inspires you to write this blog post.
I find it interesting that some think that just because some folks tend to follow Stewart's viewpoint on certain issues, that he should abandon his satirical slant on the news and be "more responsible" in his reporting. If he did, I'd stop watching because it wouldn't be funny anymore. No one is forcing anyone to watch Stewart, CNBS, Rush Limbaugh or CSPAN. Watch what you like and take away what you will. If you are frustrated that Stewart gets away with it, then fight fire with fire: get your own show, cultivate your following, and challenge Stewart! Stop being jealous of his following and get one of your own. Until then, if you don't like what he says, then STOP WATCHING. If you are jealous that some people listen to what he has to say as if it were scripture, remember that some people listen to Rush as if He were the annointed One; or Cramer. Or Rupert Murdoch. Or any kook with a bullhorn and a message. I am so sick and tired of this whole liberal/conservative thing that those words have lost all meaning to me.
On a related issue: I think for myself and I don't need a whole group or class of people to follow in order to develop my own opinion on anything. Anyone that relies on the words "liberal" or "conservative" to make their point has completely missed it. This country is in trouble because too many people want someone else to do their thinking for them, whether they be bankers, politicians, political caucuses, financial advisors or TV personalities. Enter the political parties, both of which are happy to tell you what to think and even how to feel about it. I prefer to take personal responsibility and, for better or worse, exercise my own cognitive ability to come to a conclusion. In the final analysis, whether Stewart's commentary, or any source at all, is part of my consideration, my life is my own and I will act according to my own values and opinions. I would encourage everyone to do the same - even if your conclusion doesn't agree with mine. Especially if your conclusion doesn't agree with mine.
Ben, his actions on the show betray his bias and agenda, agreed.
But when interviewed, he's denied any bias or agenda--"we just make fun of anything that happens, no bias." That's one of the 2 problems I have with him.
1. Comedy is not allowed to have a serious purpose!
2. Comedy is not allowed to have a particular political point of view!
Wait, did I just hear Jim Cramer admit in a video to market manipulation?
Ignore, ignore! Concentrate hard on Points 1 and 2...
"Stewart "rips" BO when BO deviates from Stewart's liberal agenda. "
Merely pointing out that what you said was incorrect.
Also, how are removing unnecessary government spending a liberal agenda? The piece in question showed John McCain criticizing BO and Jon Stewart took McCain's side.
"---um, no, it is. He could easily come out and say, regularly, as Rush does, that he is a biased commentator for a liberal agenda. He does nto, and infact denied it all."
He admitted bias in the very show you are complaining about. Though you seem to think that unfairness does not imply bias for some unknown reason.
"--Previously, as I stated, the show was much more about poking fun, not servicing an agenda."
It is more about poking fun. Poking fun without a topic or theme is not going to be funny. It is going to be unsophisticated and uninteresting.
"---more precisely, liberals need a commentator like stewart to view the world through."
A total non-sequitur. How about arguing the point instead? Are you defending the quality of the news media?
Please, name the episode in which he denied he was a liberal. Put your money where your mouth is. Bring some evidence to the table.
And yet he adheres to them to a greater extent then people like Cramer do. Which somehow inspires you to write this blog post.
Right. Like when he goes on Crossfire, pleads with Carlson and Begala to "stop, stop, stop, stop, hurting America," then insults Carlson's attire and ridicules them for taking him seriously?
What "journalistic standards" do those actions adhere to?
Because they're not the standards common human conduct should adhere to.
Nikita, who said he needs to adhere to journalistic standards? Our complaints is that he is a hypcrite, liar, and coward, not that he needs to adhere to some standards or not be satirical. that's a strawman as far as I'm concerned; Rush is plenty satirical on his show (and funny) but isn't hiding like Stewart is.
I enjoy the Daily Show quite a bit, but Glorious' points a few posts up are excellent. I wouldn't be caught dead basing my investments on Cramer, but I really, really wanted the guy to lay into Stewart for the cheapness of his populism and his utter hypocrisy.
"Stop being jealous of his following and get one of your own. Until then, if you don't like what he says, then STOP WATCHING."
Very true. I don't watch Stewart. Life is too short. Of course many Republicans have taken your advice and don't watch and have their own following. It is called Rush Limbaugh. Of course liberals since they don't think anyone but them has a right to an opinion, think Limbaugh is the devil and would like to use the fairness doctrine to run him off the air. No doubt if the fairness doctrine ever comes back, Stewart will claim he is just a comedien and has no need to be balanced. If liberals would just be honest and admit that Stewart is their Rush Limbaugh, there would be a lot fewer arguments.
this all started when Santelli called the homeowners in trouble "losers" for being so stupid as to get the loans sold to them by the banks, the experts.
Stewart originally pointed out the these experts aren't so expert and shouldn't be sold as such.
But last nights show gave us a little peek into the real game within the game of the market that is propped up and promoted by the corporate media.
I challenge you, Graham, to find the exact quote where Stewart lived up to be a liberal hack.
My quote comes from a show in the early 2002-2004: "People say we've got a liberal bias, but we just make fun of what's out there."
You're turn. If he's owned up to his bias recently, I will recant.
Boy, there's a couple posters who are out for Jon Stewart's blood here, and they think posting over and over on this comment page is going to do something about it.
Yeah, he clearly believes in liberal philosophy. But to call him the Rush Limbaugh of the left is blind. His interviews are much more intellectually honest and have a much greater degree of give-and-take than any typical news pundit. Jon Stewart will actually show some modesty when an opponent makes a good point, and won't try to simply equivocate by calling out strawmen. He is gracious and fair to all his guests. Doesn't anybody remember that John McCain has been the most frequent guest politician on TDS? Many conservative icons have made appearances -- Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, Pat Buchanan, Rudy Giuliani, John Bolton, to name just a few. And during the interview, though Stewart and his guest often draw clear lines in the sand, it never descends into the shouting match that is typical on all other cable and radio pundits' programs. Stewart is often even conscious of the studio audience's unfairness, telling them to "calm down" when they applaud only for his points.
He shows the exact opposite attitude that some of the extremely vicious commenters on this page are showing. People are calling him "a coward", smearing his fans as "graduates from hate studies programs". (I love people who whine about liberal bias in universities. Maybe it's because understanding other people's points of view tends to make you liberal? God forbid a professor say that there's ANYTHING useful about Marxism!)
Stewart is a fine addition to the modern political debate, because he injects a level of humanity into the discussion that few other commentators do. Obviously, the people who take his word as the one and only truth are fools, but that's not Stewart's fault. The show is filled with self-conscious lowbrow jokes that should be a cue to any viewer that this is comedy first. It's always the viewer's responsibility to take all information handed to them by the media with a grain of salt -- sadly, with slogans like "In Cramer We Trust", it's clear that CNBC will prevent that at any cost.
Seriously, though, filling up your comments with angry, dehumanizing insults seriously discredits any ideas you may be trying to convey. I think Limbaugh could learn a thing or two from this.
Megan, the Atlantic should find someone else. Sorry, but you definitely belong at a more conservative publication.
Stewart is a lapdog of the government.
Cramer is a dishonest shill.
Jimmy H,
Are you on the guy's payroll? Give me a break. I watched the clip of him with Bill Kristol and the entire interview was "tell us what it is like to be so evil". Compared to Jon stewart the old Phil Donahue show is the Athenian Republic. The typical non-liberal guest on TDS is greeted by Stewart making some snarky awful comment about how he is dressed or some other personal insult and then backed up by cheering by the chimps they let into the studio audience.
John, it's time to cool down and stop refreshing the page. Life is too short, remember?
Basic Fact,
Jon Stewart said in the very show of which you are speaking that he is not fair. It doesn't take much intelligence to realize that when someone admits they are not fair when rallying against a conservative, that it is logically equivalent to saying one has a liberal slant.
The Daily Show airs new episodes 4 times a week. Show me the episode in the ~624 episodes (they are all free on www.thedailyshow.com) you listed where he claims to not have a liberal bias. The burden of proof is on you.
Otherwise, I will just assume it is false, as I have demonstrated with all of your other claims.
interviews are much more intellectually honest and have a much greater degree of give-and-take than any typical news pundit. Jon Stewart will actually show some modesty when an opponent makes a good point, and won't try to simply equivocate by calling out strawmen.
Jimmy, Watch the Crossfire interview.
There was no give and take. There was no modesty. Jon Stewart even made fun of what Tucker Carlson was wearing.
The fact that his fans, like you, are not only completely oblivious to this level of incivility, but actually applauded it demonstrates that you simply have no objectivity about it whatsoever.
He shows the exact opposite attitude that some of the extremely vicious commenters on this page are showing. People are calling him "a coward",
Which is so much more of a smear than "partisan hack?"
"God forbid a professor say that there's ANYTHING useful about Marxism!)"
Considering that Marxism is responsible for the deaths of 100s of millions of people and the enslavement of 100s of millions more, yes God forbid. Like its right wing twin, fascism, it is an evil discredited ideology.
Jimmy H.:
Boy, some left-wing commentators who are out to defend TDS and Johnny boy as if their very lives depended on it. They think that ignoring facts over and over again will validate Johnny boy.
"Yeah, he clearly believes in liberal philosophy."
---Hooray for small miracles!
"But to call him the Rush Limbaugh of the left is blind. His interviews are much more intellectually honest and have a much greater degree of give-and-take than any typical news pundit."
---lol. Our guy is smarter, its ok!
"Jon Stewart will actually show some modesty when an opponent makes a good point, and won't try to simply equivocate by calling out strawmen."
---lIke Matthews and OLbermann? Thanks
"He is gracious and fair to all his guests."
--lmao rofl. You mean he cowers when people stand up to him? Yep.
"Doesn't anybody remember that John McCain has been the most frequent guest politician on TDS?"
---Yes, and Fox News interviews the head of NOW every once in a while. They're not biased either!
"Many conservative icons have made appearances -- Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, Pat Buchanan, Rudy Giuliani, John Bolton, to name just a few."
---Many lioberals appear on conservative shows. Doesn't mean their less biased.
"And during the interview, though Stewart and his guest often draw clear lines in the sand, it never descends into the shouting match that is typical on all other cable and radio pundits' programs."
---lol. He just waits till their backs are turned and turns on full snark when he can pull their quotes out of context and rip them without their being there to defend themselves.
"Stewart is often even conscious of the studio audience's unfairness, telling them to "calm down" when they applaud only for his points."
---That's a show of power. "See, interviewee? They follow me."
"He shows the exact opposite attitude that some of the extremely vicious commenters on this page are showing."
--lmao. This must be stewart's agent writing.
"People are calling him "a coward", smearing his fans as "graduates from hate studies programs". "
---He is a coward. He refuses to own up to his job as a liberal commentator.
"(I love people who whine about liberal bias in universities. Maybe it's because understanding other people's points of view tends to make you liberal? God forbid a professor say that there's ANYTHING useful about Marxism!)"
---indoctrinate U.
Stewart is a fine addition to the modern political debate, because he injects a level of humanity into the discussion that few other commentators do."
---Definitely Setwart's hype man.
Obviously, the people who take his word as the one and only truth are fools, but that's not Stewart's fault."
--right. He just presents it as unbiased and humorous witha wink and a nod. ;)
"The show is filled with self-conscious lowbrow jokes that should be a cue to any viewer that this is comedy first."
---lol. wow. You are on the kool-aid.
"It's always the viewer's responsibility to take all information handed to them by the media with a grain of salt -- sadly, with slogans like "In Cramer We Trust", it's clear that CNBC will prevent that at any cost."
----Yes, Stewart has no responsibility to be honest with his bias and his commentating job. lol.
"Seriously, though, filling up your comments with angry, dehumanizing insults seriously discredits any ideas you may be trying to convey. I think Limbaugh could learn a thing or two from this."
---Limbaugh could clearly learn one thing from Stewart---how to lie your way into a political commentating job and yet deny it all the way to the Fairness Act.
Basic Fact: "For many people, how [Stewart] takes on a news story---whether pro or con, and what angle he attacks---is how they view it."
Who are these people? I keep hearing allegations that they exist, but I've never seen any evidence other than pure anecdote -- something we're supposed to be skeptical of around here -- that any significant amount of Stewart's audience isn't perfectly aware that the show isn't an actual news outlet.
If you're going to claim that Stewart is some mastermind populist that's capable of shaping people's opinions en mass, perhaps you should give us some evidence that this is actually the case.
Jon Stewart is only trying to hold people accountable since the majority of the masses that get their information from corporations like CNBC are too stupid to know the truth about the motives behind that information. People are only able to make intelligent decisions if they have truthful information.
Assuming Jon's motives are politically motivated to help Obama, just because YOU don't like Obama, is just ignorant. In fact, it's so ignorant that it is clear that if you think this way you are the ideal drone to whom CNBC, Rush Limbaugh and Anne Coulter speak to. Anybody who has taken even introductory reasoning and logic classes can instantly discount just about everything these people say.
Business is all about profit. CNBC is a BUSINESS. They portray themselves as NEWS and people put faith in them for that. This is exactly what Jon's point was. Don't say you are giving out unbiased information when you know you are clearly not doing that. Taking advantage of people who don't know any better is as close to a criminal act as any I can think of, and these guys do it 24 hours a day.
Cramer is a good guy, he's made mistakes, he plays for the wrong team in many ways, but he is intelligent and absolutely understands what Stewart was getting at and even agrees with Jon on almost everything he was saying. But he needs to use the pedestal he has to do good, not to spread more of the same BS that has nearly destroyed the heart and soul of this country.
Jon was just trying to emphasize that most people are good people. But, when someone lets those that are not good people get away with taking advantage of the rest of the people, they are just as guilty as the people doing the harm. Who is the real customer: the greedy who have sucked this country dry, or the public who has done all of the work to create the wealth that has been primarily stolen from them? Time for Cramer to pick which team he will be fighting for from now on.
Megan, I've usually got a lot of respect for you (which is why I don't post here often), but the assertion that Jon Stewart has anywhere near the responsibility of Jim Cramer or anyone else in the news media is, at best, idiotic. This is one place I simply can't follow you.
Some have pointed out that Stewart is on Comedy Central. Does that shield him from the kind responsibility heaped upon and scrutiny levelled at the Jim Cramers and Larry Kudlows and Megan McArdles of the world? You're damned right it does! Stewart can get up on his high horse all he wants; it's the media that take HIM seriously, not the other way around.
If the media didn't care what Jon Stewart had to say, if they treated his show as what it, at its heart, is, a COMEDY show, this conversation wouldn't even be taking place, and Stewart would still be interviewing Ernest Borgnine and Kermit the Frog.
Sure, Stewart is skewed towards the left. Who cares?! It's a comedy show. That's like saying we should be offended by George Carlin's words. If you're questioning whether or not Stewart has any responsibility to the media or the public, you have missed the point entirely, in my view.
Graham, what is his exact quote?
"It doesn't take much intelligence to realize that when someone admits they are not fair when rallying against a conservative, that it is logically equivalent to saying one has a liberal slant. "
--Please, part of Stewart's schtick is that he is "comedy" (when he is not) so he does nto have to be fair to interviewees like a "real journalist."
He says he is not fair to a guest. That is not "I am a liberal commentator." That is "this is my show, I can act how I want."
Sorry, dude, your logic fails.
You drawing that implication goes against STEWART'S EXACT STATEMENT THAT HIS SHOW IS NOT BIASED.
Andrew,
Read the thread. Don claims the guy is the 21st Century Conkite. Numerous people claim that Stewart is fullfilling the watchdog role that the media refuses to do. That sounds like "those people" to me.
Andrew, go to Brooklyn. It's called a hipster.
Stewart is a full-blown left wing commentator, but denying it. It's disinggenuous and misleading.
Have you considered the possibility, Basic Fact, that John Stewart doesn't consider himself to be on television for the purpose of furthering the Democratic Party?
I mean, I sort of see your point - yes, I agree that John Stewart hits conservatives more than liberals and if you ran him through a Scantron, he'd show a liberal bias - but seriously, where do you get off? He calls himself a comedian. And he is one! If he obligated to stop being a comedian because he has a liberal point of view?
When John Stewart, to use your words, "denies" charges of bias to say that he "goes after everyone", he is speaking the literal truth. I don't think you've quoted him saying "I have no bias of any kind; I am perfectly objective". Because he's not! What he *is* saying is, "I will go after any politician who offends my ethical code or if I think it's funny, regardless of party". And he will! As you yourself have already admitted!
The most bizarre thing about this is that you agree with Stewart's point about Cramer. Have you considered that this is a living, breathing demonstration of the fact that Stewart goes after people who he thinks *behave badly* - and often those people are *actually* behaving badly, in a manner that really shouldn't have anything to do with partisan or ideological agendas!
Or, to put it another way, since the fact that pointing out that Jim Cramer is a tool might help the Democrats even though it also helps correct a morally wrong activity and protect stupid people from being scammed - and we agree on the last two - should it not be done?
>>Republicans need to get back to painting themselves as the boring but serious party of realists.
Sure, they would only PAINT themselves that way, as they have never BEEN tht way. All just image and BS - i haven't seen a real conservative in years or i would join such a party.
Cuz oh yeah, they Republicans are usually so TOTALLY realistic. You mean, of course, after 8 years of complete fantasy, disinformation, corruption and theft, they'll go back on their meds?
The Repubs here who can't accept valid criticism **no matter who delivers it** (cuz guess what guys, it doesn't matter who, the facts are the facts, CNBC and Wall Street screwed us all over with the complicity of the press) don't understand 'reality' in any sense. Your party just f**ked us all over as a nation, and your beef is with out who sold out the average person? You're not only NOT serious and NOT realists, you're insane sheep living in a fantasy world.
Where's your blame for Bush et al? If you want fairness, bring it, let's try that for once, since we're all out of practice with accountability after 8 years of NONE.
And yes indeed-y, there's a helluva lot more to mock on the Republican side - for one, you've all forgotten how to be conservatives. Try it!
Regular viewers realize when Stewart is being funny and when he is truly upset about an issue. UMMMM...that's why it's so funny. There is at least a little truth in almost everything he says.
If Stewart is the only person who is able to hold the financial networks accountable, then so be it. He did the same thing with politics on Cross-Fire with Dems and Repubs. Honestly, are there any other journalists asking the type of questions he is? No. Stewart shouldn't be criticized. It is the 'reputable' journalists who should be criticized for not asking the questions that Stewart does.
Yawn. The sentiment seems to be that Cramer is the financial equivalent of a newspaper astrology column, nonsensical but put on for the enjoyment of people who take his crap seriously. If this is the case, then Cramer is fair game for any mockery or abuse that Stewart wants to heap on him.
And to talk about "financial journalism" and "journalistic standards" when business writers spend most of the past 5 years kissing the behinds of the self-proclaimed Masters of Wall Street, simply will not do.
Will the people who think Stewart is just a "biased comedian" and those who think he is " an unbiased Walter Cronkite truth-teller" please talk to each other?
Your heads may assplode.
I mean, is it even remotely feasible to run a comedy show that deals with politics and emits no discernible agenda? There's no way you won't end up highlighting behavior that you personally find offensive, or arguments that you personally find to be stupid, and those behavior / arguments will occur more often in one party than another, and thus you will be accused of having "an agenda".
So why stop at John Stewart? Should every comedian come with a warning label that says "you should know, I'm nicer to liberals than conservatives!" or vice versa?
How about everyone on CNBC?
Every MSM reporter?
Anyone who calls Stewart a full-blown left wing commentator is either 1) A RAdical right winger possibly member of some fringe militia group, 2) Is a member of 4chan /b/, trolling around, or 3) Doesn't watch his show.
Stewart has juxtaposed Obama's inaugural speech with Bush's State of the Union.
or 4)an employee of nbc.
" Stewart is a facsist little fuck who has interest in informed debate or giving anyone not toeing the party line a fair say."
Posted by John | March 13, 2009 4:08 PM
******
We have a Godwin, Ladies and Gentlemen...
Wow, Shadysider, he made one bit about Obama and Bush. He's truly nonpartisan.
Bill Maher made fun of Obama's healthcare agenda. Bill must be unbiased too.
Glasnost, when you have denied bias repeatedly and denied that you are anything more than "a comedian" when you are clearly a biased news commentator, you are being a disingenuous person. Period.
I don't watch TDS nearly as often as some but I can remember at least a few times when Stewart admitted to not being fair. I think he even confessed to being a Democrat. Furthermore, his target audience is mostly liberal But there are other reasons for his attacking Republicans more often -
1. Republicans have been in power for much longer in recent years, and
2. As someone said, sometimes there's just more Republican stuff to mock.
As Steven Colbert said, sometimes reality has a liberal bias. And if Stewart is the left's Rush Limbaugh, that's very bad news for Republicans. (In truth, Stewart has nowhere near the same pull).
It's too bad you waited all day to post that because it made very little sense. People whose financial acumen is likely much higher than yours do indeed make what they believe to be informed decisions regarding their investments based on the information supplied by networks like CNBC. If they didn't it wouldn't be CNBC's policy to offer disclaimers or give us "full disclosure" about the stock holdings of guests it interviews. You give the market too much credit. It has gone apoplectic over much less.
And the problem is EXACTLY that CNBC anchors too often just quote somebody else when they frequently have ample cause to suspect those quotes are false and the means to uncover the truth
but do not.
Everyone's a genius with hindsight. Cramer gives excellent advice to traders, not to investors. Stewart doesn't know what the difference is, remarkably like the president doesn't know what a P/E is ("...profit to earnings"? --- doh!). Cramer gets his calls as wrong as my weatherman does.
How about a little subjunctive?
Attempting to hold Stewart to some imagined standard of comic news show ethics is absurd and really suggests an unreasoning bias on your part. His only job is to be funny. Any trenchancy is gravy.
@g50: The Atlantic is a very conservative website, although what will they do without Ross Douthat?
THE MOST INTELLIGENT, WELL-INFORMED AND MORAL REPORTER IN AMERICA IS ON COMEDY CENTRAL. IT'S LIKE SOMETHING OUT OF WATCHMEN.
1. Confessing to be of a party doesn't mean you have a bias. Shockingly, you don't have to vote with your party. Stewart's early years were distinctly nonpartisan.
2. Not being fair is a general statement to guests, not some sort of political view.
3. He has claimied he is unbiased in his attacks.
4. His target audience was not always liberal. I used to watch when he was fair. He shifted to that target when he went left wing.
5. His attacks on Repbulicans crossed the liine to vicious from merely "isn't this silly" long ago. He has been out for right-wing blood.
6. Quoting Colbert, the clearest sign of TDS's bias---a full on right-wing only parody----is more proof of Stewart's position as left wing commentator.
Stewart is the left wing Rush. But he's dishonest, that is what is bad about him.
"If he knew anything about stocks, he would have his own fund and be making millions and not on TV."
Ah.., he did run a very hedge fund very successfully for a long time. Nice logic.
Cramer should not be grouped with talking heads like Maria B -- he does actually know how the market works. And he has tried to let people know some of the shenanigans that go on in the market, probably more than any other financial analyst.
So we have Jim cramer, who, despite the fact that he is part of the crew that 'ruined everything', you can make a good argument that he is actually trying to make things better -- that makes him a million times better than the scum who are still grabbing everything they can.
This is also part of his motivation for the show -- he really does want to impart what he has learned to help everyday people. Sure he likes the fame, but anybody who judges him as know-nothing clown is a fool who has not followed him or listened to everything he's said.
Sure financial prediction is basically impossible, and that should be the #1 take-away here, but people don't want to hear that and they don't make shows about it, which leads me to Jon.
Stewart nailed Cramer despite the fact that Cramer had plenty of time to prepare. Stewart's argument was simple (maybe a btt too simple) but profound -- "don't pretend you know stuff when you don't". If the cable news showed followed this prescription, they would eliminate 90% of their programming -- and would that be bad? I don't think so. If the financial news networks do not ask the hard questions of CEOs and call them out when they are lying, then what is their purpose?
One final thought -- Stewart is routinely called a 'liberal commentator' because he criticized Bush so much -- was that related to the fact that Bush was a total ahole?
And for those who don't watch the show -- Stewart is not an Obama worshipper and has already started calling Obama on his BS when it happens. He will do more of that calling out if/when OBama does more BS -- it's just that simple.
If you've watched the show (which obviously many posters have not), you'd realize that Stewart has many interviews with a lot of conservatives where he tried to hold their feet to the fire for their part in the last 8 years. Sometimes he looks good and sometimes he looks bad, but he always tries to ask the hard questions and does it in a very eloquent/accessible way.
Who was Stewart hardest on before Cramer? Chris Matthews. Stewart was all over him an interview which was kind of bizarre - my point is that many consider Mathews a liberal so that means Stewart must not love all liberals.
If you think stewart is a bozo -- watch the show for a week and then post again -- I think you would be surprised.
Cramer acts shamed or what have you because in his heart ( or so he wants us to believe ) he agrees with Stewart on most things.
Very Hank Rearden-esque.....
"Ultimately, I find Stewart disturbing because in some sense he's doing exactly what Cramer is--making powerful statements, and then when he gets called on him, retreating into the claim that well, you can't really expect him to act as if he were being taken seriously."
I don't think Jon Stewart's ever retreated from anything he's said on TDS. What he has done is resist those who would anoint (or charge) him with mainstream media credibility. He's a satirist that makes news precisely because those he satirizes have failed at their jobs. Don't hold him responsible for this accountability vacuum.
Stewart is a difficult target for those he disagrees with: he deals with serious issues on a comedy show. He's flustered his critics in the media because they don't know how to respond effectively within these unfamiliar rules of engagement.
even steven:
"And for those who don't watch the show -- Stewart is not an Obama worshipper and has already started calling Obama on his BS when it happens. He will do more of that calling out if/when OBama does more BS -- it's just that simple."
---See Stewart response to Jeremiah Wright speech as Exhibit A.
And wow, he's mad when Obama fails to deliver his liberal agenda---from a liberal commentator---lol.
"Sometimes he looks good and sometimes he looks bad, but he always tries to ask the hard questions and does it in a very eloquent/accessible way."
---that's because he waits until they're not there or bad at defending themselves to rip into them.
"If you think stewart is a bozo"
--never said the snarky little cowardly liar was a bozo. He's smart, opinionated, and driven. He's also a coward,a liar, and a hypocrite.
I remember a episode after the election where John had admitted on air that if John McCain had run a cleaner and more discussion oriented campaign that he would have voted for him. So maybe His show isn't as conspiracy theory as you think. I mean really we all know the big companies have been playing the same games to make the fortunes they have now, and i think that he wasn't so mean to Cramer. I honestly think it could have been much worse on him and Yes i have seen the entire video and not just the parts that were shown on tv. It seems that people here are debating TDS value to the news and you know maybe it has more value than you like to admit. If he only bashed Obama the Repubs would love it and the Dems would hate it so your both arguing the same thing and the same points but it has just so happened that it is a SUCKS TO BE YOU situation. Just because it isn't your guy. Now i personally think you need to do research for yourself in all things but most people are too lazy and they need to be spoonfed everything. Be it News Religion Beliefs Morals everything they have become to lazy to do it them self. So i think you really need to just stop the STUPID SHIT and just grow up.
"But Stewart is all I said he is."
You missed a few points - he's successful - while you hide behind an alias to post comments on a blog. He's funny - while you're lame. He's sharp - while you're a plastic bag filled with water. I'd love to see YOU on his show - I'm sure you'd have the audience on your side...
Never. Not that i watch his show - I'm not a huge fan... But the Cramer/CNBC takedown was awesome...
I stay away from this blog because I find Megan not very insightful and pointlessly contrarian much of the time but I was drawn in by a Stewart debate. I see that there are these funny Bush supporters still bitter that Stewart and his ilk had the temerity to point out the basic fact that Bush sucked. And not just sucked as much as your typical president but inordinately sucked. But of course I should entertain your larger argument that it's totally unfair that the Dems weren't mocked as much as Bush, cause that's just totally unfair and proves that Stewart is liberal commie slime. Actually it just illustrates, which good comedy and satire does, that Bush simply had less clothes than your typical emperor. Get over it. Bush sucked and he was the right target for Stewart.
As for Obama as a target, it has happened and will happen but Obama is the least of this nations problems. What we suffer from now is the direct result of a media that doesn't do its job very well. And The Daily Show with Stewart has always first and foremost been a satire of media. The CNBC bit was just a better effort in a long string of similar efforts. I've been chuckling at conservatives warning us all that Stewart's ratings would tumble without Bush to attack. And I chuckled more today reading this discussion board and more conservatives claiming or intimating that he's going after CNBC as a proxy for Bush and Republican or some such nonsense. He's going after CNBC for two reasons. Because that's what he usually does and because they are ripe targets for this sort of satire because they deserve it.
Many posters like John and Basic Fact are pushing a fairness fallacy in that Stewart's bias is proven by him not targeting liberals as much as conservatives. Anybody who knows anything about satire knows how ridiculous that is.
Hey Basic Douchebag,
Why was Obama's Wright speech an example of political weaseldom?
"He's also a coward,a liar, and a hypocrite."
translation: I disagree with him...
"Stewart shapes people's decisions" - No. He just validates them. Like you do, for your audience I suppose (of which I am not. Just came here through Sullivan)
"---Rush doesn't hide the fact that he is a conservative commentator. Stewart does. And its cowardly of him to do so. He wants all the power of a commentator without any of the guff."
Actually you've got that backwards; Rush Limbaugh is a comedian who thinks he's a conservative commentator.
Almost all of these comments miss Stewart's major point: That CNBC has shows called "Fast Money" that almost function as an infomercial... That they hyper-inflate daily fluctuations in the markets and read too much into short-term changes, and that they claim to know what they're talking about when monkeys throwing darts could at least match their performance.
One "analyst" from Motley Fool actually said it was ridiculous that the show aired on the 3rd day of positive stock market gains, as if 3 days of increases makes up for the sh*t storm we've been going through.
It's ridiculous, and CNBC and its ilk make it MORE ridiculous.
Note to the slow: I don't respond to namecallers.
I would disagree StewartismyHero, but only slightly; perhaps they do both. I definitely think if an issue is on the fence or unknown and stewart's snarkiness cuts one way (against or for), his audience, who trust him because they've agreed with him before, will turn his way on it. That's the power of a commentator.
John: Read the thread. Don claims the guy is the 21st Century Conkite. Numerous people claim that Stewart is fullfilling the watchdog role that the media refuses to do. That sounds like "those people" to me.
I suspect that they're engaging in a bit of hyperbole but if they are claiming that Stewart is a serious journalist, I'll agree that they are vastly mistaken.
That said, I wasn't asking for evidence that anyone mistook Stewart for a newsman, I asked for evidence that this represented anything more than a tiny fraction of his audience.
Once again, Stewart and the show as a whole go out of their way to make it obvious that they are a parody of the news and not the actual news. Does the show need a large, red flashing disclaimer over the center of the screen running at all times in order to mitigate the fact that a certain percentage of people are simply incapable of understanding the meaning of parody?
But let us put that aside. It's clear that there's a number of people in here who dislike Stewart and his show. Fine, we can agree to disagree on that. Do you have any rebuttal to the arguments he made last night against Crammer and, more pertinently, against CNBC?
It seems to me that there's a lot of energy being expended on the messenger while precious little is being done to dispute the message.
KJ: Bush did not suck. But I will reserve that argument for another thread.
I still don't believe McArdle watched TDS clips with Cramer appearing on the show in full; I think she's only seen the previous clips when Stewart went after CNBC in general.
Her post is senseless in any other context.
There is one show on CNBC that will make you money, and that's Donny Deutsche's 'The Big Idea.' But it's not an investment show, it's an entrepreneurship show.
Of course, entrepreneurship means having to think independently and act proactively, and most people just want to sit on a couch and be told where to put their money. Good luck with that.
You critics of Stewart are all the same. Your type has existed forever.You are the same type of folks who would have condemned Edward R Murrow as a commie, and anyone who would question you and your limited world view as traitors to the country.
Please name one idea of the last eight conservative-run years that has actually worked,.
Heck, name one in 15 years.... For all your blather about Obama, your portaying your opinions as facts, your accusations of victimhood, your name calling of anybody who disagrees with you as socialist, your pathetic values, your intolerance and bigotry, your perfection of hypocricy, and your moronic love affairs with the terminally ignorant, you have not helped make the world or this country a better place in even one significant way.
Here's the thing; you convice no one but your fellow vacuum dwellers of your half-assed opinion and ideas. That is why you lost and will continue to lose.
The world has, once again, passed you by.
God, I feel so sorry for you......
As before, though I may call others babykiller, commie, coward, hypocrite, I don't respond to namecalling.
I do, however, respond to the well hung.
Basic Fact really has the goods on Stewart doesn't he? I mean he didn't make fun of Obama's speech on race. Clearly he's just a liberal plant. Oh Basic Fact, you are precious.
I remember the Wright days. Stewart made fun of Wright's histrionics and it was pretty funny but then he did something much more brilliant. He made fun of the media caring about this clown and his histrionics. Let's compare Wright and Cramer. The media spent countless hours on Wright who was supposed to have some sort of double-bank shot negative effect on Obama as president. Stewart would rather go after a clown like Cramer and his network who actually do damage to our economy and our nation. Stewart, as satirists usually are, is much more adept at identifying substance. My theory is that straight commentary can't rely on humor to attract audiences so it focuses on the sensational. But satire attracts with humor so can ignore the sensational. I've always found comedy more enlightening than tragedy.
When Stewart gets his Castro on in front the DNC and Pelosi has to apologize for offending his sensibilities, then he will have become the Limbaugh of the Left. In the meantime, it's basic cable satire, and last time I checked, there are no FDA content labeling requirements that it do anything other than put the content out there and let people react as they will.
To consider briefly Stewart's treatment of Kristol, really, Kristol earned it, and he would have been completely justified in taking a shot or three back at Stewart. One could offer in counter-example Stewart's relatively restrained interview with Douglas Feith, a man of much more modest intellect than Kristol, and whose errors were more costly in blood and coin.
A lot of these comments suggest that there are people who tune into the Daily Show to enjoy the sense of outrage. It's an ironic form of catharsis perhaps, rather like venting about the hate-filled left while describing President Obama in the same sort of tone and style of withering abbreviations used by those who were unhinged by President Bush. (For example, "BO" instead "Shrub," or in less erudite forums than this, "Obamy" instead of "Chimp Boy," and so on.)
Andrew, I'm sorry for yelling, but YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.
You can't have Stewart having a news based show that is both
A COMEDY TO BE FORGOTTEN
and yet
SERIOUSLY CHALLENGING OR QUESTIONING THINGS WITH A MESSAGE.
You can be satirical and serious or satirical and forgettable, to paraphrase Chesterton. Stewart tries to pick and choose when he can attack and yet defends himself by claiming he's silly.
Andrew, are you saying that when Stewart validates or supports your pov on an issue, it doesn't register with you?
I don't dislike the show or Stewart for their work, I dislike them because they are dishonest and because I don't agree with their points or methods. That's not to say they aren't intelligent, witty, or serious; it is to say they are dishonest.
"I watched the clip of him with Bill Kristol and the entire interview was "tell us what it is like to be so evil"."
Well don't you want to know?
Here's why John Stewart is not the left's Rush Limbaugh:
John Stewart can debate guests. Rush Limbaugh cannot.
All Rush can do is take a question/comment, then turn the caller's microphone off and ridicule him without allowing the person to reply.
That's not a debate, and that's the problem with Rushbo, he doesn't have the intellectual honesty or skills to defend his positions.
IDEA: Let's televise a Stewart/Limbaugh debate! -Recorded/aired by an unbiased 3rd party.
Jon Stewart is NOT the host of the Daily Show.
I hope he fails.
If I see him, I will throw eggs at him.
I am ashamed of America because of him.
"KJ: Bush did not suck. But I will reserve that argument for another thread.
Posted by Basic Fact | March 13, 2009 5:41 PM"
I don't think I could do more to defend Stewart against Basic Fact than simply quoting the above.
Basic Fact: Andrew, go to Brooklyn. It's called a hipster.
You know, for someone who calls himself Basic Fact, what I haven't seen coming out of you, very often, are basic facts.
I see a lot of allegations and subjective, albeit impassioned, claims, but very little support for your arguments.
So I'm asking you to support one simple assertion.
What is your evidence that anything more than a tiny fraction of his audience believes that the daily show is a real news show?
(And I will remind you of one of Megan's favorite quotes, before you answer: the plural of anecdote is not data.)
I am now boycotting Jewish cock in protest.
I have not touched a black cock since inauguration.
Since I live in New York, thank God for Puerto Rican boys.
Colin, this isn't about "requiring" Stewart to do anything legally, this is about his dishonesty morally. He is two-faced in his actions and should be more honest and forthright about his position and agenda. He isn't, and it can be misleading, especially to those who agree with his viewpoints; they are most likely to mistake him for an unbiased comedian instead of a left wing commentator.
EVERYONE knows that comedians are usually conversative.
I'm a bigger dumb cunt than megan!
I'm sorry, Andrew, but that is a straw man. I never said I believed people were mistaking Stewart for a real news show.
What I said was that Stewart's audience can't seem to decide whether he is a forgettable biased comedian or unbiased commmentator in the mode of Edward R. Murrow.
neither is accurate. He is a biased commentator. He is dishonest in denying both aspects of himself, and his dishonesty is on the order of confusing people.
I'm a mentally ill bully overcompensating for my crushing loneliness!
Imposter, I had a Puerto Rican boyfriend in the past; and I resent the pseudo-hipster 'slur'.
Gay is fine until you want something to use to slur, eh?
Well, I'm not ashamed.
Stewart is not a left wing commentator, he is a satirist. Satirists target that which is susceptible to satire, usually people and propositions that are logically incoherent or that are representing themselves as something they are not. It just so happens that conservatism is riper as a target these days. I had thought that was obvious considering the past few years.
Basic Fact (the real one) - I see where you're coming from, but being a latte-sipper myself, and hanging out with latte-sippers for the most part (since we don't talk politics in the office), I think that my friends and I are all pretty tuned in to Stewart's biases.
I've never really understood how it is that anyone could think that you could make sense of the world without being biased: you need some sort of analytical or philosophical or ethical or religious moral prism, or else what do random data actually mean? I know it would remove a lot of the arguing points from what passes for political news and analysis, but simply acknowledging that we're all biased and focusing on 1) is the data complete, and 2) are the interpretations convincing and coherent, would be a better use of our time.
Probably too much like hard work, not least in accepting that "other" doesn't always mean "evil."
I am an independent and it always amuses me to watch extremists on both sides try to convince each other their side is right. Here's a hint... when someone is set in their viewpoint, your best arguments will have no effect, so don't waste your time. This is the partisan crappy world we've created for ourselves, now we have to live with it. The age of reasonable and respectable debate disappeared with the arrival of the 24 hour news cycle.
Both sides are always sure they are right because otherwise they would believe something else. No one sets out to believe the things they think are wrong.
I tend to follow people who merely LEAN one way or the other because they tend to base their arguments less on emotion and more on reason. I tend to watch people who don't take themselves too seriously or whose sole agenda seems to be to spread hate and divisiveness(ann coulter, anyone?)
Therefore, I watch both Scarborough and Stewart. I watch both Maher and Huckabee. Whether you agree with their views or not does not make one or the other wrong. No one can define wrong as long as there are two sides... you can only define your side. The truth and the answer for everyone lies somewhere in the middle. This is called consensus. Something our society has forgotten about.
If conservatives are upset they have no one funny to defend their side, watch Dennis Miller. Since 9/11, he's all for you.
BTW, Josh... you say you are in the 18-24 age group, so I have to compliment you. Your posts are really well written and mature for someone in your age group.
KJ: Satrists can be neutral or biased. Rush is a right wing satirist, Stewart a left one. Stewart targets the right wing a heck of a lot more. That's the danger when a commentator agrees with you but claims he is unbiased: you start to think the news accurately supports your biases.
Colin: I've never said he couldn't be biased. I am saying he should admit to it.
The danger is, of course, that while you think you recognize his bias, you don't know when he is merely being silly and actually being serious.
"I think that my friends and I are all pretty tuned in to Stewart's biases."
---huge danger there, since you can't speak for everyone watching the show everywhere. And as you can see here, people are denying Stewart's biases flatly, and dismissing debate; in essence, they *don't* get his bias, and literally need him to announce it to admit to it.
That shows the danger in his dishonesty.
BF: Andrew, I'm sorry for yelling, but YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.
If you don't want to yell, simply keep your fingers away from the caps lock key. I promise you that I am literate and that I am fully capable of reading your words even when they are lower-cased.
BF: You can't have Stewart having a news based show that is both A COMEDY TO BE FORGOTTEN
and yet SERIOUSLY CHALLENGING OR QUESTIONING THINGS WITH A MESSAGE.
The show is satirical, which can be simultaneously comic and serious. Read Swift's "A Modest Proposal" for an example.
Mind you, I'm not insisting that Stewart is in the same league as Swift. I consider this a matter of subjective taste and am willing to accept that you and I have a disagreement about Stewart's skill.
BF: You can be satirical and serious or satirical and forgettable, to paraphrase Chesterton. Stewart tries to pick and choose when he can attack and yet defends himself by claiming he's silly.
Stewart has consistently said that he is not a source of advice. He doesn't expect anyone to actually get the news from him and he openly mocks those that do. His criticism is towards those who do position themselves as experts and journalists and who fail to live up to those responsibilities.
BF: Andrew, are you saying that when Stewart validates or supports your pov on an issue, it doesn't register with you?
I'm saying that I don't go to Stewart as a source for my opinions or information. Little things like the fact that he's on a comedy network and the fact that he openly admits to being a fake journalist serve to tip me off to the fact that this would be rather unwise.
Like any responsible citizen, I try to find sources that are reliable when forming my opinions. The entire point of this Crammer fiasco is that a lot of people who are actually claiming to be fonts of knowledge and wisdom are nothing of the sort and, yes, Stewart is calling them out on that fact, as a good jester should.
But even here, I'm not going to simply assume that everything Stewart said is gospel, which is why I'm asking you and the other people who think that Crammer was maligned to respond to the arguments that were made against him.
You've made it abundantly clear that you hate Stewart and thing that he's a coward, a hypocrite and a phony. Fine. Duly noted. Now what about the charges he made?
If the only argument you have is to the man, then I'm afraid that I'll have to look elsewhere.
BF: I don't dislike the show or Stewart for their work, I dislike them because they are dishonest and because I don't agree with their points or methods.
You're objection to his methods is your own. I disagree with the charge of dishonesty. If you're taking advice from someone wearing a big poster-board that says, "Hey, I'm a comedian!" then I think that the problem is with you and not him.
BF: That's not to say they aren't intelligent, witty, or serious; it is to say they are dishonest.
Point me to any case where he claims to be anything other than a comedian, and I'll be happy to agree with this charge.
My partner Juan had no idea he was biased; I had explain it to him several times.
Juan is very intelligent for a 16 year old, so if he can be fooled....well
BF: What I said was that Stewart's audience can't seem to decide whether he is a forgettable biased comedian or unbiased commmentator in the mode of Edward R. Murrow.
You think that Edward R. Murrow was unbiased? I think that you're being a tad a-historical, here.
Be that as it may, you can take up the Murrow claim with Fallows.
What I find incredible is your claim that Stewart hides his biases. I can only respond that if he's trying to hide that fact, he's doing a spectacularly bad job of it and the only people who are likely to be convinced that he has no bias at all are those who are, frankly, just a little dim.
As I said, I am profoundly skeptical that there are any significant amount of people who genuinely think that Stewart represents some sort of platonic neutrality. I'm fairly confident that the average viewer of his show is perfectly aware that he tilts left and takes that fact into account.
I'm also find this distinction that you're trying to draw between comedy and commentary to be... rather subjective. I think that comedy and commentary go hand in hand. One of the ancient functions of comedy was to call the powerful to task. One can be a comedian without limiting their schtick to knock-knock jokes.
Nor do I understand why you seem to think that the hallmark of comedy is that it's forgettable.
Frankly, I'm finding the bulk of your arguments to be rather perplexing.
Jon attacked CNBC for the comment about "Losers" not just because they are a corporate propaganda network but because they were blaming Joe six pack for the crises and calling names which is class warfare. I see that you did not actually watch the interview but if you did you would see that Jon is doing the reporting that you and other "reporters & bloggers" have not, and he is pissed about it. He wants to tell jokes, he wants to have decent ratings and be otherwise ignored but if no one else is going to call bullshit he is forced too. So the question is not why does he think he has the right to speak but why have you and others sat back in silence until now that you are taking time to tell him his place? Is it because those that sign your paychecks may no longer want too if reporters did actual journalism aside from character attacks?
Because they're not the standards common human conduct should adhere to.
I find myself wondering if anyone has ever lost money because Steward does not rigorously adhere to journalistic standards.
No?
Andrew,
You're perplexed, because you're debating an articulate fruitcake.
When did the mentally ill actually make sense?
Stop using my name!
Only a coward like Jon Stewart would post using my name!
Unlike Stewart, I am a fearless warrior who signs my real name to my posts.
I don't know BF well enough to presume to judge his mental health but I don't get the impression that he's ill so much as he's impassioned.
I do find this line of discussion frustrating, however. I really would like to see him, or someone else, take an actual crack at addressing the criticisms that Stewart leveled last night, regardless of whatever they might think of Stewart and his show.
Unfortunately, I'm getting the impression that no one is interested in doing that.
The poster above is an imposter!
Basic Fact is a portmanteau identity where Douthat, McArdle and Suderman post secretly.
This explains for the seeming schizo tone sometimes.
Andrew: "The show is satirical, which can be simultaneously comic and serious. Read Swift's "A Modest Proposal" for an example."
---That is part of my point. A satire can be used pointedly. My paraphrase of Chesterton goes to that as well.
To wit: Swift wrote the piece as both satirical and serious. However, if he'd been attacked for it, and then defended himself with the "I'm only being funny" line, that would have been disingenuous.
"you and I have a disagreement about Stewart's skill."
---I think we have the same agreement: he is very skilled. I think he is dishonest, not untalented.
"Stewart has consistently said that he is not a source of advice. He doesn't expect anyone to actually get the news from him and he openly mocks those that do. His criticism is towards those who do position themselves as experts and journalists and who fail to live up to those responsibilities."
---Not really. he critizes political agendas with the same fervor. But that's his problem overall: he, at one moment, claims to use hsi satire for a serious purpose, and then hides behind his satire saying it is mean unseriously. Its changing the rules by the moment: whatever helps Jon. That's dishonest.
"I'm saying that I don't go to Stewart as a source for my opinions or information. Little things like the fact that he's on a comedy network and the fact that he openly admits to being a fake journalist serve to tip me off to the fact that this would be rather unwise. "
---yet you just said that satire can be serious (like Swift) as I did, so arguing he's on a comedy netowrk is a non-starter. but certainly you agree that Stewart's barbs are serious when he criticizes? So he's not merely a comedian, eh? He's a commentator.
Leave out Cramer; I am talking about Stewart overall. Cramer is a clown.
"But even here, I'm not going to simply assume that everything Stewart said is gospel, which is why I'm asking you and the other people who think that Crammer was maligned to respond to the arguments that were made against him."
--- I don't think Cramer was maligned. Straw man. I think Stewart is dishonest overall.
"You've made it abundantly clear that you hate Stewart and thing that he's a coward, a hypocrite and a phony. Fine. Duly noted. Now what about the charges he made?"
---I don't hate. Agree with him on Cramer.
You're objection to his methods is your own. I disagree with the charge of dishonesty.
"If you're taking advice from someone wearing a big poster-board that says, "Hey, I'm a comedian!" then I think that the problem is with you and not him.
"Point me to any case where he claims to be anything other than a comedian, and I'll be happy to agree with this charge."
--Andrew, you're missing my point: when he claims "I'm just a funny man" its to say "don't take my opinion seriously/I am not serious." Yet then he'll (and you) will say his criticisms are serious and worth hearing.
You can't have it both ways, which is what Stewart is doing. He is not allowed to declare "this criticism is serious/I am in serious mode" and then "this criticism is a joke" just because, at the moment, it is convenient, which is what he does.
When cornered, he hides under the "silly joker" shield, but when winning a battle (such as over Cramer), he'll get a "I am a serious satirist, my criticism are valid" mode going. its a total cop out.
That is true, and it is dishonest.
Andrew,
If you want to see his 'passion', bring up Obama or abortion, or check his comments in the past.
The man is mentally ill.
Dear Megan,
Make cramer illegal?
I'll never subscribe to the Atlantic on that one.
Ted
All Jon Stewart did was speak truth to power. To the powerful who took our money, and bought private islands. To the cheerleaders of the powerful who still tell you that the market is fair and aboveboard, and you shall make oodles of money by investing in it when it is "down".
Jon Stewart is the one guy with a microphone and camera who had enough balls to lay out a case that the average guy, in the mindset of the Wall Street "Masters of the Universe", are just sheep to be sheared, suckers who do not deserve an even break. "Losers", because they decided they needed to buy a house, and the carpet was pulled out from them by the "Masters of the Universe".
So, right now we could use more truth, from any source, not less. Especially from those with the ability to be heard.
busdriver mike: "All Jon Stewart did was speak truth to power."
You see, Andrew? Some people here are taking Stewart as some sort of truth telling commentator. Yet if so, he can't hide behind the joke shield when the going gets rough. Which is what he does. which is cowardly.
"Do you have any rebuttal to the arguments he made last night against Crammer and, more pertinently, against CNBC?"
I don't disagree with him about Crammer. Read my first post. I hope they both get hit by a bus. I just think that the only reason Stewart went after Crammer is because CNBC is doing real damage to Obama. I don't question is specific position but rather his motives.
In Stewart's defense, it is true that he cannot help that most of the people who watch his show are uninformed, smug, morons. I guess he could do better and try not to cater to them, but the guy has to make a living. You can't blame him for that.
Andrew: as many people on this board have mentioned, they do not beleive Stewart is "biased", but merely a truth teller.
And Stewart himself has claimed his show is unbiased.
Andrew, despite the fact that you and I can see his bias, some people can't or won't unless he says it (a la Rush Limbaugh).
That's the danger: they believe that unbiased satire proves them right, when it is merely biased satire designed to reinforce their opinion.
"To the powerful who took our money, and bought private islands."
You mean like Chris Dodd and Barney Frank? Stewart will be a truth teller when he goes after people like Dodd who got rich from crooked bankers in order to look the other way when all of this was happening in the 00s. Ever watch the Youtube video of Barney Frank in 2003 telling people from the evil Bush administration that there was nothing wrong with Fannie and Freddie and no need for regulation? Now that would make a hell of a DS clip, but I am not holding my breath for it to be on. Or maybe it was. If it was, then Stewart has more integrity than I thought.
Megan does not treat any single specific instance from Stewart's interview and illustrate how and why it was misleading.
Does that leave her open the the precise critique that she makes of Stewart?
Stewart is obviously not going to be absolutely right about the details, but the clarity of his position (i think the simplification is a matter of presentation, not an artifice of the argument) is admirable.
There does appear to be an element of defensiveness in Megan's post. Her attack on Stewart is also largely an ad hominem attack.
What does it say about her as a commentator that she fundamentally misunderstands the role of the comedian or satirist? Jon Stewart presents a fake news show. What part of that does she not understand?
Andrew, my points boil down to this:
Stewart can use his show to critique through satire, and that is fine. But if questioned or challenged, he cannot go into the "I'm just a comedian mode" which he so often does. That renders all his criticisms null and void, because now he's just a silly clown with no point.
Second, if he is going to be a serious critic, then he should announce it. The show, as it now stands, claims to be merely mocking the news in an unbiased, silly way. By not announcing it, and allowing the show to continue as it is, he is implicitly dishonest.
He can be a left wing serious commentator with good satire. Or he can be a silly clown. But he cannot pick and choose what he is, depending on his probability of winning or losing the argument.
Besides, i don't think this had anything to do with Obama. Have you guys actually watched Stewart's show this week, or since January 20?
Stewart did NO reporting here. He strung together irrelevant clips that don't show a thing about the the meltdown. The clip was how to talk up or down stocks when you ran a hedge fund in the 90's, not how to run a financial network. How is that relevant. I guess it just scandalized Stewart.
Someone should defend Cramer here. His show has a disclaimer about its entertainment purpose. It is for traders, but not many care for it. He makes trading calls nonstop so of course he is wrong. All traders are. 40% correct is about all it takes to do well.
The CNBC anchors have a variety of views on politics and the economy. They aren't responsible for digging up the dirt on CDO's that noone still understands. They talk stocks and require disclaimers of guests portfolio. The CDO's are regulators like Geithner's job. I will wait for Stewart's skewering of Geithner. And I don't mean his hand gestures or pointy ears. He is SO tough on the left's pointy ears.
Stewart is mad about leverage %'s as if that was scandalous. They were set by regulators and were effective. What was the story there supposed to be? And how are short sellers somehow robbing people and somehow in league with the cheerleading on CNBC. And who takes CNBC's advice? Their viewership is low and consists of traders mainly who know how to handle the info provided. Everyone else invests in index funds which are ran by the talking heads who come on CNBC and cheerlead their positions and lose Stewart's Mom's money anyway. These guys didn't steal Stewart's money.
The whole thing was so stupid and convoluted that Cramer did the right thing by just nodding and saying I hear you because the alternative was to say "you idiot, you have no idea what you are talking about". Cramer should have told him to ask Geithner these questions.
ok, y'all, I'm done.
D, I would argue with you, but I am exhausted and keep repeating my points to every new guy. Please read the above points by John, Glorious, Staash, and myself to rebut your arguments.
Basic Fact,
"Sorry, dude, your logic fails.
You drawing that implication goes against STEWART'S EXACT STATEMENT THAT HIS SHOW IS NOT BIASED."
Again, what episode? Oh wait, you can't list the episode, because you are completely and utterly full of shit.
As I said before:
Otherwise, I will just assume it is false, as I have demonstrated with all of your other claims.
No retort to this?
I wonder why?
Juan has a new leather hood; I'm not giving up that for this - I'm sorry.
Part of the reason you're likely to see Stewart not go after Obama is that Obama and his crowd are unlikely to offer up large, easy targets like Bush and Gonzales and a fraudulent War.
Besides, Obama goes after Chris Mathews as much as he goes after say Jonah Goldberg.
You've got to realize, Stewart runs a fake news show - he's going to look for low hanging fruit - Bush contradicting himself fundamentally over 12 months is easy low hanging fruit. Complicated policy disagreeements between Summers and Geithner (especially when both can discuss them like educated adults who are experts in their fields) is simply not.
Neither are detailed, complicated arguments about the renting vs home ownership (incidentally, the WSJ of all publications came to Frank's defense on this issue).
You can't criticize Stewart from something he isn't and doesn't claim to be.
You're trying to debate with Basic Fact as if he is a sane and balanced human being, when you've more chance stopping a monkey with rabies throwing feces.
He is mentally ill. Being intelligent and articulate doesn't change that fact.
See the 200 Obama is not my president posts; they are him, by his own admission.
He is mentally ill.
---Stewart's show is more than enetertainment; that's the trouble. For many people, how he takes on a news story---whether pro or con, and what angle he attacks---is how they view it. Stewart hides behind comedy, but he's no longer a comedian; he's a commentator who claims he's not a commentator.
This is actually an interesting point, but mostly because the core issue is that many of the stories he reports on aren't mentioned other places.
It's pretty painful to think about seeing the smaller serious news stories on comedy central while 'real news networks' are talking about Ashlee Simpson's nose job and michelle obama's arms.
Graham, please. he said it. No, I can't find the clip for 6 years ago. But I watched it.
meanwhile, your worthless quote doesn't prove Stewart admits bias. It requires you to close your eyes, bend over backwards, and play hopscotch to get to that point.
Stewart denies bias. He is dishonest on that point.
I applaud the Comedy Central. What they have done, through Stewart is simply revolutionary. Calling bullshit on NBC, an arm of a powerful corporation. This is simply never done. Well except if it is criticism from the right, like the Rather affair.
This is the third gigantic strike against the corporate media by CC. The other two: Stewart's smashing of Crossfire and Colbert's Correspondent's dinner speech.
I could care less if the method is impure. There are millions of Americans out there with guns right now daydreaming about killing the president and any number of their fellow citizens. More than a few of them feeding on NBC fare.
Go to the fainting couch if you will Marie.
This is way too late for anyone to read but I made a ton of money by watching Wall Street Week.
The Elves, after Rykyser fired Bob Nurock, were a disaster. In fact, the Elves NEVER, I repeat, NEVER made a correct call on Nasdaq. They made the wrong call about 40% of the time and a neutral call about 60% of the time.
It is a pity that they cancelled the Elves after 9-11. I was making about 180% a year on my money for about 14 months.
Maybe it was dumb luck, I don't know.
So, I am proof you can make a lot of money by going against some of the idiots on TV
CNBC isn't in the business of giving financial advice. They exist to sell ad space. During the day their ad space is from brokers, primarily.
What can CNBC do to make that space more valuable? They can convince you to trade. Any trade. It doesn't matter. All that matters is that Broker X gets a blip in calls for running the ad.
Is that bad? I guess it depends on your view of the mainstream TV viewer. Should they be trading? Do they need stimulus to trade?
Or should they just sock it away in balanced stock and bond funds and forget about it?
(I think CNBC is bad because most people should not trade. We can rag them for that, to make up a little for the 6-8 hours they do every day on cable TV telling you the opposite.)
There is an old saying that whether people love you or hate you, if they keep talking about you you have won. It's amusing how much time, effort and attention John and Basic Fact are speding on John Stewart. They sure are "taken" by him. He has won! They can't let him go. Guess he gets the
last laugh.
I find it amazing that the major complaint against Jon is that he should not hide behind being a comedian even though Fox News/Limbaugh/Hannity/Ingram/Coulter and all the rest of the right wing talking heads have been using that for over 20 years. Are they no longer comedians and will now have to stand by their words?
Does it make any sense to attack the show that openly calls itself Fake News and does not even have News in the title while we ignore Fox and the right wing talking heads that claim to be News or Journalists or editorialists but then when they offend they are comedians? The difference is that Jon says I am a comedian please let me get back to my job and generally offends no one except the person he attacked but this time he destroyed the argument that it was all the little people that destroyed Wall Street so of course suddenly the Republicans cant stand him. Oh yea and according to studies Daily Show viewers have more knowledge of news and events than any other "news" viewers while Fox had the lowest scores, lol gotta love reality.
The mentally ill are known to be obsessive, if it wasn't Jon Stewart, it would be some other thing which drives Basic Fact to distraction.
I genuinely wish he would seek help. Medication would enable his intelligence to get a proper outlet.
"This is actually an interesting point, but mostly because the core issue is that many of the stories he reports on aren't mentioned other places.
It's pretty painful to think about seeing the smaller serious news stories on comedy central while 'real news networks' are talking about Ashlee Simpson's nose job and michelle obama's arms."
Exactly, because as stated above, The Daily Show is only regarded as real news because real news outlets have dropped the ball.
I think Basic Fact gets the basic fact wrong: John Stewart may have a liberal philosophy, but he is by no means a cheerleader for one side or the other. He doesn't seem to see the world that way. He targets, above all, hypocrisy. Familiar storylines--
People who were never in war making war, cutting taxes and increasing spending all the while calling yourself a 'small government' type, liberal tree huggers who live in 20,000 sf homes, anti-earmarkers enacting earmarks, etc.
He doesn't seem to have a 'side' the way that most commentators do, which is obviously what pisses many here off. His side seems most to be be up front and honest, cut the bullshi$--you'd better act the way you present yourself (how can you not be cynical about Fox News, Fair and Balanced?).
I remember when he effectively killed Crossfire. The reason he blew up on the show (he went on NOT as a comedian -- 'I'm not going to be your monkey') was that he was sick of the red/blue b.s. dichotomy wherein one's political party dictates his/her position and not the other way around. It was an is disingenuous and counterproductive.
Hypocrisy will always be the target of satire. If right wingers can't find hypocrisy to satirize, don't blame JS. Start your own tv show.
Basic Facts: I did your work for you, and you're wrong about Stewart's alleged claims of lack of bias about his show. From Wikipedia:
"Stewart says that while the show does have a more liberal point of view, it is not "a liberal organization" with a political agenda and its duty first and foremost is to be funny. He acknowledges that the show is not necessarily an "equal opportunity offender", explaining that Republicans tended to provide more comedic fodder because "I think we consider those with power and influence targets and those without it, not."
"Graham, please. he said it. No, I can't find the clip for 6 years ago. But I watched it."
No you did not. Prove it. The burden of proof is on you. Your biased mind is making it up and you know it. You WANT it to exist and it doesn't. You cannot find the clip because it doesn't exist.
As I said before, every single point you have noted on this forum is full of shit, including this one.
Seriously, try and debate a single one with actual evidence instead of arguments from emotion.
Eric,
You'll find Basic Fact will tell you Wikipedia is liberal, as he finds everything which disagrees with his position to be part of his paranoia fantasy of everything being against him.
It's very sad really. I hope he gets help. But being mentally ill in New York City means he probably won't stand out enough, unless he acts on his violent fantasies about hurting the president, which he has mentioned many times before.
And I forgot uber-liberal Ted Kennedy being a hypocrite douche about the clean wind farm that would "destroy" the vistas off Nantuckett...
Hey "Basic Fact":
Have you ever thought that you see bias by Stewart, because you are biased yourself?
You say Stewart is a liberal, which is a generic conservative smear. You say you do not watch him because of his constant pandering to Democrats. Yet, you watched this week just so you could spray your opinion about as if you were a disinterested observer.
Can you tell me one fact Jon Stewart used during his interview with Cramer that is false?
I guarantee you GE would be very interested in that information, for they would blare it like a klaxon throughout their media outlets.
So, specifically, how did Stewart speak untruth to power?
BF: Andrew, my points boil down to this:
Stewart can use his show to critique through satire, and that is fine. But if questioned or challenged, he cannot go into the "I'm just a comedian mode" which he so often does.
I'm not sure that I've seen him do this. In this latest incident, there were some people, such as Scarsborough, who demanded to know why he didn't predict the meltdown himself. In that case, the proper response is, in fact, that's not his job or his expertise.
Again, if you have examples, I'd like to see them.
BF: That renders all his criticisms null and void, because now he's just a silly clown with no point.
Now that's just bad logic. An argument stands independent of the one making the argument and it stand or falls on its own merit. You are, quite literally, committing the fallacy of ad hominem, which is to say that you are arguing to the man rather than the message.
BF: Second, if he is going to be a serious critic, then he should announce it. The show, as it now stands, claims to be merely mocking the news in an unbiased, silly way.
Once again, I'm wondering where this claim of neutrality is coming from. I watch the show on a fairly regular basis and it's perfectly clear to me that it's not unbiased nor do I think that it's trying to convey that impression. As I said previously, I think you would need to be mentally defective to actually believe that this is a platonically neutral show.
I also am confused by your use of the word "serious". I don't think that the show has any illusions about being Meet the Press, nor have I ever caught Stewart trying to promote himself as an expert or a pundit.
But being a satirist does not prevent one from raising serious points. Indeed, I would say that the essence of satire is that one is *expected* to raise serious points via the use of comic devices.
BF: By not announcing it, and allowing the show to continue as it is, he is implicitly dishonest.
I think that you are insisting on a disclaimer that isn't needed. I think that the show is, quite explicitly, and unabashedly, satirical.
BF: He can be a left wing serious commentator with good satire. Or he can be a silly clown. But he cannot pick and choose what he is, depending on his probability of winning or losing the argument.
Again, I find the distinctions your attempting to draw to be... well, baffling to me.
The show is clearly satire. The satire is often broad and does occasionally descend down to juvenellia , as Stewart is the first to admit, but there's no bright dividing line between being satirical and being silly. One can, indeed, do both with the reasonable expectation that the audience is competent enough to which is which.
I almost get the impression that your real fear is that people are simply too stupid to understand the show.
It must be pointed out that Cramer in fact made a gazillon dollars picking stocks above 'broad boring strategies'. And he largely tell you how he did it.
But how he did it is why he doesn't do it anymore. By working riduculously long hours to 'beat the market'.
The pitfall from Cramer's advice (which he tries to caveat against but human nature is what it is) is that it still takes a lot of what he calls 'homework'. And most people are simply not willing to do it.
And even if you're willing to do it, it's normally not worth the payoff*. His metric is an hour a week per stock. Assume that's correct. So for a balanced portfollio of some 6-7 stocks you are looking at an extra 6-7 hours a week of work for the *possiblity* of a 1-2% edge over the long run. For a 100K portfolio, this is around 1500 bucks for 300+ hours of work - less than minimum wage. So it's generally worth it to just put your money into a boring index fund because the gains the average investor can get are not worth the time involved - similarly the gains from a professional money manager are seldom worth the expense involved.
*unless you enjoy doing it, then it would be totally worth it. But then it's recreation not work.
Part of the reason you're likely to see Stewart not go after Obama is that Obama and his crowd are unlikely to offer up large, easy targets like Bush and Gonzales and a fraudulent War.
Huh? Obama's been in office seven weeks and he's providing a cornucopia of targets for comedians. Obama appointed a tax cheat to the head of Treasury, to go along with the other Democrat tax cheats in Congress, and they're all proposing to raise everyone else's taxes. You would think that's a "large, easy target" for a comedian.
Not to mention the fact that all Obama's campaign promises seemed to expire shortly after the election. Remember how the government was supposed to have a net decrease in size? Remember how earmarks were gonna go away?
You'd have to be a pretty retarded or very partisan comedian to overlook all that.
Basic Fact's secret identity is "Rorschach" from the Watchmen. I'm liking it ;-)
"Remember how earmarks were gonna go away?"
Um actually, as noted, Jon Stewart lampooned Obama for that very thing the night before with the help of clips, from, gasp!!!, John McCain!!!
He's too balanced and well-adjusted to be Basic Fact.
Well now it's the Democrats who have the power and influence, but given Stewart's fealty to all things Obama, I doubt we'll see a change in his focus. He's essentially a state sponsored comedian for the duration. I leave it up to you to guess how hilarious that's likely to be.
Guys . . . if the sun is shining and a liberal tells you it's sunny out, do you declare that they are only saying so because Obama is president? Some things aren't political and Stewart's interview with Cramer is an excellent example. It was about journalism - speaking truth to power and investigative reporting. It wasn't even about Cramer, it was about what he represents. As Stewart said, "this song isn't about you". It was an first rate interview about a hugely important topic in America today. When he wants to be, Stewart is Edward R. Murrow.
Cramer and all the others have used their platforms to tout or smash stocks with the intent of making money for themselves or accomplices. You can be absolutely sure of it.
The stock market is a cesspool. Always has been and always will be. It's engine has always been the shill and the tout. CNBC has always been the tout channel.
Since 2000 stocks have, on a rolling ten year average return basis, had their worst performance in modern history, including the Great Depression. The worst performance ever in the memory of anyone living over 9 years and CNBC was a daily orgy of incredulity and crap about stocks. The personalities, mostly, shills, touts, courtiers, toadys and boot lickers.
To RelyT who said:
"K: If you'd like to list Obama's supporters who are more impressed with Obama today than they were on inauguration day, I'll be glad to read it. The list his supporters who are less impressed would be too long to read, so I'll save you the trouble."
Huh? The man's only been in office for 50+ days and ALREADY you think '...The list his supporters who are less impressed would be too long to read ..." What are you smoking? Let's back off and give the guy some time to work at his job. That'd be like me telling your boss your work product/ethic is *&$% after barely 2 mons on the job. Nice.
Let's see YOU, or anyone else, try to take on the clusterf*ck he's inherited and do as well as he has up to now. Oh, and to infer that he's acting too fast and scaring people is just plain idiotic. I'm personally impressed with his expeditious action in light of the seriousness of multiple issues which face the nation and it's citizens today instead of the usual red-tape, bureaucratic, years-long bullsh*t that government is known for. And I should know .. I'm a government employee.
Btw .. I'm also a Republican who DIDN'T vote for OB.
Some of you on this thread make the claim that Stewart's followers are uninformed morons who will believe anything that Jon says. You might want to take a look at this:
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/993/who-knows-news-what-you-read-or-view-matters-but-not-your-politics
Arguing that Stewart's commentaries are directed at mindless twenty-something stoners is just inaccurate. I'm an educator with a Master's degree, I'm a religious (though not dogmatic) Christian, I've traveled all over the world, I'm well-read, and the Daily Show is NOT my only source for news, but I admit that I never miss it. Jon's show appeals to the intellectuals of society because (if you can get past Jon's self-deprecating humor that sometimes gets a little crude), he's one of the most intelligent people on television. GO JON!!!
Says Basic Fact to me:
"Satrists can be neutral or biased. Rush is a right wing satirist, Stewart a left one. Stewart targets the right wing a heck of a lot more. That's the danger when a commentator agrees with you but claims he is unbiased: you start to think the news accurately supports your biases."
This is a fallacy. A satirist pays no attention to balance. If the Left is the correct target of satire, then the left gets satirized and vice versa. By your standards Mark Twain and Jonathan Swift were biased satirists. Bias is irrelevant to a real satirist. Accuracy is the real question here. It's not how biased Stewart is but how accurate. I think he's been fairly accurate.
Stewart came to his prominence when the Right has been messing up the nation along with the "liberal" media. As a nightly watcher of the show, I can tell you that he has targeted the Right less than he has targeted the "liberal" media. So maybe Stewart is a left wing commie plant but even if he was it really wouldn't change much of what successful satire in this age should be targeting. It's almost irrelevant.
Rush, on the other hand, is simply a satiric dinosaur who was never very good at it in the first place.
Basic Fact: Since when has humor ever been at odds with truth telling? Ever heard of Mark Twain? You would sound pretty ridiculous trying to argue that Twain was a truth teller pretending to be funny or vice versa, or claiming any kind of cowardice because of it.
Please give an example of Stewart "hiding behind the comedian" mask! I believe Stewart would and has gone toe to toe with anyone on any serious issue, and I think you would be hard-pressed to produce a clip or a transcript in which he backed away from the opinions he's expressed in an evasive or cowardly way.
Agree with RelyT. Used 2 b a big fan of Stewart in 06 - 07 when he was skewering hypocritical Republicans nightly. Then in 08 I saw him go all lap dog when he had Obama on and I totally lost all respect for Stewart. I do think Stewart did a terrific job on Cramer (and Cramer totally set himself up) with that video about manipulating the market. But his Santelli attack was baseless. Santelli has always been a free market guy. He's not being the least hypocritical.
Stewart's best material is gone with Bush leaving the WH and he is going to jump the shark sometime very soon, imo.
Kolohe:
Did you watch the interview of Cramer last night? Because Stewart rolled tape showing Cramer openly talking about how he used illegal techniques to manipulate the market TO HIS ADVANTAGE when he was a fund manager.
Cramer lost all credibility with me last night. I have watched his show off and on for years. Some of the stuff he said made sense, but his stock picking was something I never relied on.
But watching him openly brag about how he snookered the market by making phone calls to a lap dog financial press to gain a market advantage sickened me. On top of that, he bragged that the SEC was too stupid to ever catch him. THEN, he looked at the video camera taping him!
Cramer should be in jail, and he knows it. He is a blatant, confessed criminal, not a role model.
"I watched the whole interview. That I didn't have the take on it that you wanted is not proof that I didn't watch it; we just disagreed on the relative import."
That completely confirmed my earlier assumption that you, Megan, are less tha a second-rate intellect.
Megan,
You've really outdone yourself with this posting. Your breathtaking ignorance is too much to handle.
Jon Stewart did a greater public service in 23 minutes last night than you have done in your entire career.
Stewart's video was not misleading at all. Shame on you for making this ridiculous charge. You're simply a shill for corporate fat cats and you can't handle the truth.
"Huh? Obama's been in office seven weeks and he's providing a cornucopia of targets for comedians. Obama appointed a tax cheat to the head of Treasury, to go along with the other Democrat tax cheats in Congress, and they're all proposing to raise everyone else's taxes. You would think that's a "large, easy target" for a comedian.
Not to mention the fact that all Obama's campaign promises seemed to expire shortly after the election. Remember how the government was supposed to have a net decrease in size? Remember how earmarks were gonna go away?"
Funny you should mention the tax cheat stuff cause Stewart had a segment on that very same thing a few weeks ago and has incorporated that joke at least 2 separate time in other segments. As for the net decrease in size, I've never heard of that. In fact he very clearly promised to increase government overall while promising to cut ineffective programs. And McCain, the old white guy in the campaign, was the one promising to eliminate earmarks. Obama spoke to earmarks but it was hardly why people voted for him or anything that was remotely close to a priority for him.
As far as I'm concerned TDS is a comedy show. And so you should watch it if you think it's funny. Probably 53% of people who watch it are liberal. Probably 53% of the television viewing audience is liberal too based on recent election results. So just because the public has a liberal bias doesn't mean he's biased. He's just representing majority opinion. Next thing you know someone will be complaining that Stewart is bad because he's a comedian who doesn't represent the views of rush limbaugh. Limbaugh's funny too sometimes if you hate women and minorities --- "she totally sounds like my ex-wife". That just doesn't get the laugh that it once did.
Did you watch the interview of Cramer last night
No, but I will with all the rave reviews.
Like Suze Orman, I find most of the basic big picture advice he gives ok, albeit kind of rudimentary (but, I think that's what many people need). So I think the hate both of them get for their current work is kinda overblown.
I agree, however, there is a case to be, to hate on their work in previous lives, enitirely based on public statements both had made.
How was it misleading? He showed clips from CNBC for godsake. The problem for McArdle is they see Cramer as some sort of rep for freemarketology so anything that attacks Cramer attacks their beliefs. They can't give credence to Stewart because tomorrow he'll be exposing Republican earmark hypocrisy and that would never do. McArdle btw is not over bright by comparison with Douhat or Sullivan.
Jon Stewart did his homework, which is more than Jim Cramer ever did. He was just a shill for shady corporations. This was a public service. Megan has some problems with Obama and it seems to shade her thinking.
Posted by KJ | March 13, 2009 7:55 PM
.....What a pity all the targets so far are Limbaugh, Cramer, Santelli, Steele, Boehner et al. You people are so sad.
Mcardle is not overbright by comparison with a box of spanners.
Time and time again for the past year I have heard on the economy shows on NPR, on cable news, etc. say the financial crisis is coming to an end, we're through the worst of it, things are going to be looking up in a little while so it's tough but doable. And none. NONE has presented anything close to real evidence to support this fact when there are vast amounts of evidence to the contrary. The voices like Roubini, Krugman or that financial times guy were truly voices in the wilderness.
And in the interview itself Stewart was far more serious, so that some have criticized him as unfunny. You don't like Jon Stewart, fair enough I don't regularly watch him and Colbert myself but what we saying was undeniably right: CNBC (and other economics prognosticators) blithely assured us things were good or about to be good again against all evidence to the contrary.
Stewart's points were valid. There should be no equivocation on this. Bitch all you like about where his bias is in general, or how dumb and young his viewers are in general, but this particular critique is well-founded and the merit goes to whoever articulates it. His clips of Cramer and of CNBC demonstrated that as financial news, it mostly seems to be serving the newsmakers and a narrow market of consumers, not the broader public.
But I do have a question for Stewart. Cramer and the rest could have said, "You know, 30:1 leveraged investment instruments based on repackaged debt give great short returns, but this is not sustainable. In plain english, the possible downside is tremendous and we feel it's coming eventually." Would that conclusion have helped?
The fact is, the reporting Stewart seeks would have probably tended toward the conclusion that this was a house of cards, starting circa '98. Would announcing that on air have been a good thing? I think we'd still have a very complicated and pained economy on our hands. Isn't it a dilemma between advocating a polyanna point of view and inducing a panic.
The real question is, why weren't financial news orgs revealing both corruption and recklessness so that the public could get informed and, rather than flee the market, demand a return to regulation? Because in any case, it was regulation that was needed, and fair financial reporting could have influenced where this country went.
I also think Stewart's basic point that trashing "loser" homeowners for their optimism and poorly informed bets about tomorrow ... Well, yeah. He has Santelli on that one.
So, plain facts will not give any instance where Jon Stewart said something untruthful last night.
Kolohe has an opinion about something he did not take the time to watch, and now I am "hating on" a confessed criminal, Jim Cramer.
Boy, one things for sure. Republican trolls never change.
Poor little smug Obama butt boy Jon Stewart. Not talented enough to get a network talkshow. Even lame sad sacks like Jimmy Fallon and Kimmel have one. Talented people like Steven Colbert and Ed Helms to name two have left the Daily Show and Jon in the dust. Stewart is like the 50-year old manager at McDonalds. Never going anywhere. Jon is also a huge coward playing out of context years old video instead of debating like a real man.
oh, the irony is Jim Cramer is an Obama supporter who donated tons of money to the Democrats. He is one of you Neocons. Except he took off the blinders and is getting punished for it.
Nick said "..The fact is, the reporting Stewart seeks would have probably tended toward the conclusion that this was a house of cards, starting circa '98. Would announcing that on air have been a good thing? .."
Yes! Absolutely! One credible reporter saying that would not have caused a panic, it merely would have moderated the insane, unreasoned enthusiasm of the market. And a more moderated market would never have dug this deep a hole. In fact, more than one credible reporter WAS saying that since '98, but obviously not nearly enough of them.
My God, conservatives are just such douches. Will it never end? They've led us off a cliff and rather than any contrition, they just continue to bitch and moan and point fingers. That's what this pathetic author and her defenders are doing: pointing a finger at Stewart for his imagined failings of purity or balance or consistency. How are they not thanking him for stepping forward and shaming these cretins who completely abrogated their responsibility as watchdogs. I've become completely convinced that in the event a Republican administration were to lead us to certain and immediate extinction, that moments before idiot conservative bloggers and talk show hosts wouldn't be gathering with their families, but rather would be spinning on line or on the radio. After eight years of sheer idiocy and incompetence they aren't in the least humbled or apologetic. They've become a stain on the country.
Busdrivermike-
I may have been longwinded but I was more or less agreeing with you in my second comment.
My first comment was more of a meta comment based on McArdle's initial post where she cites an oft repeated critque (left and right) of Cramer - that 'no one' can pick stocks because if they could they'd be rich and not on TV.
To re-itterate - Cramer got rich picking stocks (with how much shenanigans? more than a bit, no doubt.) He is no longer picking stocks because it takes too much time. He can earn a good living going on TV and not get heart attacks.
Likewise, some people can 'beat the market' - there is a subset of people that are both smarter than average and more motivated than average. But the amount of work it takes to 'beat the market' is seldom worth the amount you (as a retail investor) can beat the market by and the risk that you won't.
This subtle distinction is something I thought McArdle would appreciate, otherwise the entire raison d'etre for the financial industry is indeed kaput, which I'm sure is not a conculsion she would make.
You're comparing a hugely successful media personality who can make jokes about CNBC that get discuseed in pretty much every major media outlet to the 50 something manager of a McDonalds?
You're deranged. Do you understand that? Nuts. Not only is the only comment you chose to make purely ad hominem, but it's just ridiculous to boot. It's highly likely that you misunderstand the relationship between Colbert, Carell, Helms, and Stewart. The probability is that all those people (one of whom has the kind of cable show you trash) are successful because TDS gave them exposure, because it's already a successful vehicle. And that's obvious.
If you actually stand by what you said, you're deranged.
Detroitsubway,
That's a worthwhile point. I really don't know what the consequences of better reporting from CNBC et. al might have been, but especially if it wouldn't have caused a panic, but merely a push for regulation, it's a shame and a crime that the reporting was what it was.
And my last comment was @scumby
Who cares about Jon Stewart? If you want to know what's in store, look at Dennis Miller. Throughout the 90ies, his politically incorrect right wing rants provided a career for him. Then Bush came along and it just wasn't funny any more. Now they're both washed-up hacks.
Stop kidding yourselves: Stewart built his entire career off of ripping on Bush. Once Obama's approval numbers drop into the low 40ies (and they'll get there by the end of this year), we'll see how funny The Daily Show is.
My God, conservatives are just such douches. Will it never end? They've led us off a cliff and rather than any contrition, they just continue to bitch and moan and point fingers.
You mean conservatives like Chris Dodd and Barney Frank? Oh, is that "pointing fingers"? What is it you're doing?
There seems to be a whole lot of people asking "have you seen The Daily Show" - I have to wonder how many people arguing that CNBC and financial journalism in general should be held to a higher standard have actually watched Cramer's Mad Money. I have, not intentionally, but because it often happens to be on on the TV's at the gym I go to.
The man bites the heads off plastic bulls. He throws things. He brings in props - pizza while talking about Pizza Hut, ect. His reporting IS, at least partly, entertainment.
It's also food for thought. I don't buy individual stocks, but sometimes it's interesting to hear what he thinks of a company - because sometimes it sounds right, but sometimes - especially when he talks about tech companies, since I work in IT - I completely disagree. It's like reading, well, the blog of someone you don't always agree with - you get a better idea of the arguments against your viewpoint.
Anthony,
I've watched more CNBC than is healthy, and the overall project of the network strikes me as hugely unhealthy.
Minutes after the speech to the joint session, CNBC had a poll asking, "Is long term investing dead?"
That was it. No qualifications. It's a network that primarily serves people who make short-term sector or stock specific calls. When they had Roubini on, they wanted stock advice from him.
When nationalization was briefly considered, CNBC as a whole acted as if not only was that the absolute worst option a priori, but it was shocking to the pundits and commentators that it would even be discussed. When Geitner's big speech failed to suspend mark-to-market accounting, they played it up as a total failure for that reason, and despite the fact that current market movements are mostly a result of low volume and high volatility, CNBC has acted as if the movements on the DOW average represent the verdict of the investing public on Obama.
The same network that asks if long term investing is dead -- again, no qualifying statements -- wants us to believe that daily market performance is a verdict on the new administration by the great mass of American investors.
And beyond politics, they clearly serve up news based on the notion that only solutions very friendly to bank balance sheets are good solutions. Suspension of mark-to-market is wonderful, TARP is good (but the strings attached reprsesent social engineering), but stress tests and devices to determine a bank's insolvency -- that's terrible! The idea that the government should be discovering which of these banks are solvent and which are not -- just awful!
It's atrocious.
Obama has nothing to do with the shape of today's macro economy.
The economy as we know it depends absolutely on the expansion of credit. The economy is a Ponzi scheme. This was the system that developed from the early 80's and then accelerated after the 87 crash and every crisis after. More credit and liquidity after each to paper over the losses and keep growth positive.
As the Wall Street lead credit market collapsed in 08 Uncle Sam became the borrower of last resort. For all 08 Treasury and agency borrowings totaled 1.9 trillion dollars. Uncle Sam stepped into the breach to borrow the money needed to keep the economy afloat. Not enough however to keep asset prices, stocks and real estate, from falling.
Excess liquidity in the system is what drives stocks higher. That's it. The stock market is a barometer of monetary expansion. Sometimes other assets inflate instead of stocks so stocks under perform but stocks can't rise under conditions of shrinking liquidity. Meaning when credit contracts.
Brains, smarts, savy, history or God doesn't make the stock market move. CNBC was just a pimple on the ass of the great liquidty engine that was Wall Street and is now Uncle Sam.
Obama will sit by as the money men command Uncle Sam borrow $2.5 billion in the next 12 months. He has no choice, They have no choice. Our elites will be swept adrift or swept away if the borrowing stops.
People giving the girl here waaaaay too much credit. It's clear that her problem is not NOT watching The Daily Show in full, her problem is NOT getting it at all. Keep to your blog, sister.
Megan, in the Cramer interview, Stewart goes out of his way to tell people that Santelli has consistently been against bailouts.
Much of his point on the clip montage was that the network repeats things uncritically. So you criticize him for showing video of anchors repeating things uncritically
And more than that...you haven't actually done any reporting yourself. You say that the clips are out of context, but you haven't gone back to check any of the context. You claim you know because you know...but why exactly should we credit what you say? You're accusing him of deliberately misleading the public; if you're going to make a claim like that, it seems to me that you might really want to take a stab at giving an actual specific instance and trying to back it up.
I know it might be difficult to do that...but you're at the Atlantic, for crying out loud. You're a well-respected financial journalist. Call the Daily Show and ask them if you can see some of those clips in context. Or research it some other way. Do some scut work. If you're going to try breaking a story -- and that's essentially what you're doing -- then go out and do the scut work.
Cramer is not the issue. It was Rick Santelli calling those of us who took his network seriously "losers"
Stewart made a big deal out of making Cramer accountable, but that was all bogus. The real reason was that Cramer was telling the truth about Obama, and he had to be squashed.
Would any of this have even come up if Cramer hadn't waxed ugly on Obama's fiscal policy? Not on your life.
But if Stewart wants to hold news people accountable he can start with NBC news and all the rest. Here's a bunch who sold the country a bill of goods and helped put an incompetent boob in the Presidency. And now said boob is in the process of running the country into the ground. Stewart could make fun of Tom Brokaw by contrasting what Brokaw said in the past with reality. Here's a clip of Brokaw saying that Obama's a moderate. Here's a clip of Obama spending 2 trillion on socialism. Stewart smirks for the camera and the audience laughs. Lots of yuks in that piece for sure.
Comes now the aggressively stupid Megan McArdle to accuse John Stewart of ... what was that again?
you're at the Atlantic, for crying out loud. You're a well-respected financial journalist
Who on earth respects Megan McArdle? She is Exhibit A in the dumbing down of what was once the elite media.
In October, when Cramer endorsed Obama, where was Jon Stewart and other lefties to speak out against him? Oh, right, they didn't.
I guess no one had lost any money in October, right?
"Ultimately, I find Stewart disturbing because in some sense he's doing exactly what Cramer is--making powerful statements, and then when he gets called on him, retreating into the claim that well, you can't really expect him to act as if he were being taken seriously. "
I'm sorry, if you can't see the difference, I question your intelligence...while it IS true that many people take Jon Stewart seriously or get most of their news from him...his show is on Comedy Central. To compare him saying "you can't expect me to act as if i'm being taken seriously" with someone who says the same thing -- on an actual news network -- is laughable at best, and depressingly idiotic at worst.
Stewart should NOT be held to the same standards as actual journalists on actual news shows on actual networks. He is a comedian with a highly rated program that takes a satirical, comedic look on the news -- on a comedy channel.
Seriously, before anyone starts blaming anything on Jon Stewart, let's actually TRY to use a little intelligence? Seriously. My God.
have you ever been right about anything?
anything at all?
Frankly, Stuart's a moron. He's not stupid, per se, but he's neither is he exceptionally well-inform. In short, for a pseudo news program where he pontificates, usually with snark, about nearly everything, he's well over his league.
That people actually take him seriously says more about those people than him.
Megan, I feel as if you're missing the most important point: Cramer is put on a pedestal by CNBC and makes thousands of recommendations arbitrarily every year -- people watch that show to get insight on stock picks.
People watch TDS to be laugh and be entertained for 26 minutes 4 days a week -- and largely get away from the myriad bad news on other networks. Stewart isn't making statements on what people should do.
Further, I'd imagine that TDS's audience is far more educated, politically active, and has much more skepticism regarding the MSM.
WARNING: Evil Vulcan schadenfreude alert!
As a fan of youtube's Don Harold, I have been rooting for Cramer to be exposed for ages, but I had no idea how utterly brutal Stewart's takedown would be. Stewart castrated that guy.
Cramer might go to prison now. Finally, hope I can believe in!
How in the world do people like Frew refer--somehow without irony--to Obama as an incompetent boob. And then throw around the word "socialism." That's stunning. And this is done after only two months of trying to clean up the devastating mess made on every level by eight years of incompetent and arrogant boobs. That's denial on a clinical level.
As for Megan McArdle: her little attack likely comes from some place within that's trying to rationalize her own uselessness as a journalist against the actual good that Stewart is doing in confronting directly Cramer as a symbol of so much of what is wrong in journalism--and not just financial journalism, but in the kind of empty, lazy, useless journalism McArdle herself practices.
Good for Stewart. Anybody watching that interview who didn't instantly recognize its value to our country is a tool.
Megan, if you don't point out what it is in the video that's "misleading", this is just worthless moral relativism.
If I looked at this from a purely public-good perspective, financial reporting ala CNBC is not just worthless, it ought to the regulated out of existence. What's the system of values that says that's not true?
Clown nose on, clown nose off.
get a life megan!!!! u think jon is a joker?? who the heck ever gave u a job??? he is the one doing what a journalist is suppose to do while all you journalists are doing entertainment....!!!! gosh get a real education and hope some one fires you because of your stupid commentary!!!
jon stewart shows reality and not be a dumb ass like you guys are...
First, I just need to say the comments here are so much more thoughtful and less venomous than what is on HuffingtonPost where the idolization of JS has reached mythic proportions.
I agree with the writer about the misapplication of the video clips. They were misleading and simply placed for maximum editorial control of cramer. If there were any attempt at fair mindedness I did not see it. The videos of cramer in the summer of '07 pleading with the fed to do something proactive because the fate of the entire financial system was at risk was never even mentioned. (Why cramer did not bring it still intrigues me) It was a hatchet job designed to blame a cable star and network for what a lack of government regulation over the past 15 years or so had wrought. But that story is too complicated and those who get news from JS can handle only 22 minutes a day. Thus, they had to move fast and simplistically.
Yes, Megan, another pro-Stewart review would have been less interesting to read, but the contrarianism here seems a bit forced and misses the mark. You probably should have sat this one out.
Does anyone even realize how ridiculous it is when they whine about Jon Stewart? It makes it seem like they're in a defensive crouch. Jon Stewart could be the most biased, cowardly, bullshitting-est guy on the planet and it wouldn't change the real point here.
People keep trying to say this, but the point is not getting through: JON STEWART IS ON COMEDY CENTRAL. HE HAS MADE AN ASS OF HIMSELF ALL OF HIS LIFE BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT HE DOES, HE'S A COMEDIAN.
People always whine because of Jon Stewart saying or doing something that they think is incorrect or misleading or whatever and then retreating into the 'oh but I'm just an entertainer' bit.
Guess what - he IS an entertainer. He's an ass on Comedy Central. If you're going to cross your arms and cry that that douche Jon Stewart said something misleading, then you can't be taken seriously. You can't be taken seriously, because you are implicitly expecting Jon Stewart to be taken seriously. By criticizing him for his so-called 'retreats' behind the 'I'm just an entertainer' bit, you're giving him more respect than you're saying he deserves.
If you think a clip by Jon Stewart is disturbingly misleading, say so. Parse the clip, explain the context that the Daily Show isn't showing. Explain, so that people can really see and understand, why he's being misleading. Why do the people who criticize Jon Stewart so rarely do that?
Oh sure, they vaguely say that The Daily Show ran a bunch of clips that were taken out of context, but then they act as though they want the job of fully explaining why that's so to fall at Stewart's feet. They try to say that Jon Stewart refuses to be held accountable. Whose job is it to hold Stewart accountable?
When people say that it's Jon Stewart's job, they strike me as children asking Jon Stewart to be their Daddy. Daddy's the responsible one, Daddy's the one with the weight of the world on his shoulders. As if, because Stewart dared to point out something that he thought was true, (which anybody in the country has the right to do - anytime, anywhere, in any format) he stole your jobs from you and now you're dependent on him. When people point out that it says something sad about the state of affairs that Jon Stewart is the only real journalist around, they're saying how pathetic it is that we're all depending on the three-year-old who just learned to tie his shoes to pay the bills because all of the adults skipped town. And criticizing the three-year-old for not doing the job well enough DOES NOT make you look like more of an adult.
Stewart is right - he is just a comedian, just an entertainer. A comedian and entertainer who often makes serious points? Yes. A comedian and entertainer who has a lot of influence? Yes.
But when the people who should be the adults treat Stewart as someone who should be looked up to as an adult - when people who set themselves up as serious writers and journalists, complain that the guy on the comedy show isn't doing a better job than they're doing: it is them, not Stewart, who to me seem like they're retreating and hiding. It's them who are retreating behind the cowardly and buck-passing "I know you are, but what am I?"
I was going to try to slog through all the comments, but I ran out of steam so here are a few highlights:
--
Anyone else notice that many of the Stewart detractors, some of which are self-identified conservatives, have a tendency to conflate fact and opinion? Here are a few examples:
No, it's not a comedy show. It's a news show with a comedy angle and Stewart knows it. - tim maguire
No dude, you don't know what Stewart knows. Thats an opinion, not a fact.
Stewart crossed the line from comedian to partisan commentator long ago. He is now the Rush Limbaugh of the left. That is not an insult, but a fact. - Basic Fact
You'd think someone taking the moniker of Basic Fact would have a better handle on them. Again, opinion, not fact.
--
The only thing I have seen Stewart say about BO was that he could parody him for being so smart and so competent, you know like he is Jesus or something. - John
Look, if you don't want to watch TDS no one is going to make you, but if you aren't going to watch try not to speak definitively about what potshots JS is and isn't taking at BO, it will only make you sound addled. Just wander over to Comedy Central's website and call up the utter evisceration he did of BO's press secretary, it was dead-on, vicious and righteously funny.
--
Few liberals here will never admit Stewart is biased or has an agenda, or that he is more than a mere commentator at this point, because to do so would force them to step outside themselves and admit that liberal does not equal true. - Basic Fact
I don't think I agreed with Basic Fact on anything in his numerous posts, but I have to give him credit here for speaking the truth. And this is no opinion, it is a bona fide fact:
liberal != true
--
I just love it when knuckle draggers try to sound smart. They're so cute!!
"...but did Stewart mock it? No, he claimed the speech was "a politician talking to Americans like adluts about race." It was obvious that Stewart was in the tank for Obama and would now be using his agenda to push his campaign forward."
You can't be serious — did you watch the same speech everyone else did? Obama's race speech was indeed one of the first speeches in a very long time in which a politician talked about race as if the audience was made up of adults. So, supporting someone who doesn't BS the hell out of every issue is being "in the tank" for them? If you actually watch the show (which you admit you do not), you would know that Stewart has not let Obama go unscathed. Your problem is that the previous administration was such a rich source of bad behavior that anyone coming after them — much less someone with a bent towards actually acting reasonable — will appear to be treated like royalty by comparison.
Others here have said this, and it is supported by the number of conservatives who have agreed to repeat appearances on the show: Stewart manages to pull off some of the fairest interviews on television and still manages to include questions that "serious" network moderators never seem to have the balls to ask.
BF -- Congratulations on arguing a conservative point of view in complete sentences without profanity or calling people "ghey." I mean, the facts are not as "basic" as you claim, but you did what you could, and we appreciate the effort.
Stewart OFTEN makes clear his liberal perspective. I doubt anyone with a functional brainstem would be confused on his point of view. In fact, the night before the 2004 election he all but begged people to vote for Kerry. It went something like: "Please, I beg you. Make my job harder." Look it up.
You can rant and rave all you want, but you see it your way, and the majority of Americans see it another. The results of years of Republican rule and mismanagement have clearly brought the chickens home to roost. Colbert said it best: "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."
Seriously, would you hire someone who states in the interview that the job you're asking them to do is one that shouldn't be done? What's left of conservative intellectualism is completely incoherent.
Re: the Race speech, if I may quote lengthy excerpts:
"But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country - a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam [...]
"[...] That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician's own failings.
"And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright's sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.
"In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience - as far as they're concerned, no one's handed them anything, they've built it from scratch. They've worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time."
This was a bold speech. Millions of people not "in the tank" for Obama noticed that he was saying things that weren't usually said. Telling blacks their resentment and its expressions were often ill-founded, and counterproductive, and that whie people in this country feel that they have have had the immigrant experience; telling whites, on the other hand, that black outrage isn't new and is only shocking if you haven't been listening, and it is not right to simply condemn it and wish it away, because that is also counterproductive.
One man doesn't usually say all those things. Using Stewart's endorsement of this remarkable speech to prove that he's "in the tank" is to assume that everyone must agree, to be considered reasonable, that the speech was a travesty.
This is not so.
I am surprised that people think Stewart is actually a good satirist. They must have never heard the names "Swift" or "Voltaire" before.
Alas, I must be spoiled.
Also, Stewart came out looking like something of a conspiracy theorist to me, essentially claiming that everything that has gone wrong was deliberately planned to go wrong from the beginning, in order to rob the poor and the middle class. This was caused because CNBC is in the pocket of these Wall Street companies. Wall Street includes overpaid CEOs.
He takes a basically correct point, and then runs with it to create a viewpoint that is pretty gosh-darn hilarious.
Dear Mr. Basic Fact,
If you think George W. Bush was a decent president you are obviously stupid and perhaps mentally retarded. If you would deny this fact, then your are a liar, hypocrit, and a coward.
In the words of George Costanza: It's not a lie if you believe it to be true.
I'm sure Stewart believes he's non-partison, just like I'm sure you believe your not stupid or mentally retarded.
Perhaps, you should argue about the substance of Stewart's position, rather than being all bitter about the aclaim that he gets (which may or may not be deserved). Though you've succeeded in annoying a lot of people here, which I'm guessing is what you were trying to do.
It seems to me with the frequent and abundant replies, that 'Basic Fact' is just 'fanning the flames' and who might possibly be working for Atlantic. True? Probably not. It's most likely my liberal bias wishing it to be true.
@Olson
I'm assuming that you're using Voltaire and Swift because you think we haven't seen their like since?
How unfortunate for us.
Also, the point of view that CNBC essentially chose not to air the view that 30:1 leverage was risky -- chose not to explore what became one of the biggest stories of this decade -- is hardly a conspiracy theory. It alleges that those who cover finance for CNBC had inside knowledge of the risk involved and chose not to conduct actual reporting on this risk, because they approached the topic with no innate journalistic skepticism but instead were "cheerleading" the process.
That seems to be quite true and quite damning.
As to whether Stewart is an effective satirist, he has a different medium than Voltaire or Swift: video. And back-to-backing clips of, say, Rove endorsing Palin happily and then denouncing potential Dem VP Tim Kaine as being the mayor of a small city and inexperienced governor, and therefore an unserious choice -- well, Stewart needs no bon mots once he presents that.
I don't know your personal politics, but you are missing the point entirely, as have all conservative commentators and bloggers bar none (I arrived at this article from a conservative site): Stewart was rightly taking Rick Santelli to task for calling struggling home owners "losers". Why can't any - especially self-styled Christian - conservatives see what is wrong with that? If Santelli was quoted out of context (which, having seen the video myself, seems scarcely credible) then Stewart could have easily been put down.
Come on, conservatives. I used to be "on your side", but I am utterly appalled by your comprehensively Darwinian response to this economic crisis. It's OK to talk about personal responsibility during normal times, but, on this occasion, everyone has had the rug pulled from under their feet. Show some Christianity and distinguish between good and bad government spending. It is not inherently bad.
Were tsunami victims "losers" because they picked the "wrong place to live"? Was it their responsibility to take out tsunami insurance? Perhaps the Iraqi people should have taken out dictatorship insurance? Was American government spending in these areas bad?
Remember: pride comes before a fall, and no-one but no-one is indispensable. Also, think of the parable of Dives and Lazarus. Take note: Dives was the bad guy!
Totally!
Anyway. Rush Limbaugh sure is ruining the country, huh?
" I'm very sympathetic to Stewart's deep critique of financial shows, but I don't think the way to go about it was to string together a bunch of very misleading clips. Nor to imply that Santelli, who has been vocally against all bailouts from the beginning, was merely frothing on the forclosure program because ordinary taxpayers were finally getting a taste of federal largesse. "
The clips were there for a reason. Think about it this way - Santelli's rant was about the government promoting bad behaviour. And, about subsidizing the 'losers' mortgages, and overall that people should be punished for bad decisions and actions. Which is not overall a bad position.
The clips exist to show that CNBC is a bunch of losers as well, giving both bad advice and bad analysis. And yet, they have neither meted out punishment on themselves, or have asked the public to.
That's the reason for the clips, and isn't about the homeowners being assisted - it is to point out how easy it is to mock and show disdain for losers. As long as they aren't you, or in your circle.
I came here from Sully. Really, Megan, you used a lot of words to say nothing much. I enjoy Stewart and he uses comedy to skewer many of the MSM loud mouths. Of course, it is not good to watch Cramer being skewered. But Cramer does a lot of weird stuff on Mad Money.
No: you guys and gals who sit at computers and opine have little idea of how badly CNBC did its business. Listen to Larry Kudlow and you will get the flavour of a buffoon bloviating on finance.
Everything is about capitalism, socialism, free markets and other mantras. But real people paid the price with their 401Ks.
i laughed till i cried on this thread. someone way up there suggested it be saved for posterity in a time capsule. i concur.
i was wondering how the conservative hacks would approach this story. its so cut and dry that with the financial collapse the rotton underbelly of not only wall st. and high finance, but indeed of capitalism itself has been exposed. jon stewart is doing a public service by digging deeper into the rot. so i was wondering how the hacks would approach this story and i think its cute. this is how they want to try and spin it? good luck. people are catching on. i didnt read megan in the past and i dont intend to in the future. what was the basis of her argument again? context? ha
put cramer in jail. its there on tape. put all these fucks in jail. the american people and the entire world are catching on.
one last thing. how about the worldview that there is this underclass of minorities who leech from the john galts of society, and these parasites drain the vital juices of this country. we see the debate framed this way often. how about this: there is a drain on this society and it is a huge parasite sucking our vitality. its these bankers and financiers. what do they contribute? they feed off of other people who deal with real goods and services while they construct a house of cards for themselves and their exclusive friends. and they have the temerity to point the finger in another direction. we see you. we see what you do.
i see that more than a couple of commentators are saying stewart is going after cramer because he criticized barack obama. if you really follow stewart you would understand he doesn't leave even obama when he does stupid stuff..it'll be easy to find clips of stewart making obama look stupid. coming to the point of stewart critisizing cramer..here in this mar 17 2008 edition of TDS, he is eviscerating cramer for making stupid predictions..check it out here: http://mediamatters.org/items/200903120021?f=h_latest
that is about Bear Stearns..
"I think Jim Cramer should be illegal."
Are you out of your goddam mind?
Go back and read your Constitution, starting with the FIRST F'KN AMENDMENT.
"The media hated Bush and especially starting with Katrina attacked him daily and with the coordination of a pack of wild hyenias."
Wow -- this couldn't be more wrong.
This is contradicted, not by the 'liberal media' but by ... wait for it... Scott McLelland, Bush's press secretary.
My guess is that you will dispute McClelland's credibiility (with the old argument that McClelland is lying to sell books despite the fact the guy is a lifelong conservative).
So for those who think the media was tough on Bush, one question arises -- What would it take before you will stop accepting this lie? A statement from Bush himself? Or would you then claim that early Alzheimer's was the culprit?
As far as the Media's "love affair" with Obama, you're confounding the historic nature of the presidency with Love. The media has gone gaga over the fact that we elected a black president.
The main stream media will not be tough on Obama for the same reason they are not tough on Bush -- because they will lose access.
MSM is not a pack of hyenas, they are a pack of impotent drones.
You couldn't be more wrong. The video clips were far from misleading. Cramer admitted to manipulating the market, illegally, when he was a hedge fund guy. When Stewart alleged that Cramer knew all along that these banks were leveraged 45 to 1 Cramer did not deny it.
And if you watched Jon Stewart on a regular basis, you would know that he is the first to call himself out on mistakes. He's selling snake oil and he tells everyone that. Cramer sells himself as a financial adviser when he's nothing but a buffoon and a market cheerleader. You missed it.
Naive me, I was surprised at how many times Cramer said the ceo's etc. he interviewed out-and-out lied. I agree with Stewart in that CNBC needs to dig a little more and expose this baloney....like having a weekly show where they shamelessly debunk all the lies that were told on their interviews. Now that's something people would WATCH! I would!
A couple of points....
1. Stewart is attacked incessently here as a "coward". Actually, I think cowardice could probably be better defined as using 5 deferrments or a pilonidal cyst to avoid military service.
2. Progressives have been taking $hit from the pundits on the right for years. Now we have people who are firing back, and you are all squelling like Ned Beatty in Deliverance. Stewart and Colbert are the needle under your collective right wing skins. We love them.
3. The stock market is not the economy. Emphasis on short term gyrations, as manifested by Maria B. starring up at the board while pee runs down her leg, does not constitute useful financial journalism. I heard somebody say we are going through the "Obama Bear Market". The Dow went up 700 points this week, it's best week since 11/08. Are we now in an "Obama Bull Market"? The biggest % losses in the S&P500 in the last year occurred while the former Boy Wonder was POTUS. Not a wimper of the great Bush Bear Market from anybody.
Have a nice day......
I didn't read every comment here, but most. I have a few questions. First, is it possible for a person to examine the news and happenings of the day and asks questions objectively (focus on finding the truth, nothing else)? Second, is anyone here aware that the assumptions and basis beyond most of his/her arguments comes from the personal reputation of commentator? So, if Jon Stewart is a "left-wing nut" and Rush Limbaugh is the same for the right, can any person who sees himself as a right-winger agree with Jon Stewart or any left-winger agree with Rush Limbaugh?
There is a deeper problem here, and in my assessment (and I could be wrong and invite you to tell me why I am) most people here are not evaluating their own thought process - including biases - for the flaws. I'm not sure what they're teaching in journalism school, but before making claims with any broad implications you have to do research, cite your sources, interpret and analyze and most importantly,
Realize you could be wrong and don't personalize the issue to the point of being offended if you are.
This idea that everyone is on this continuum of left/liberal, right/conservative or somewhere in the middle is a false dichotomy and really limits the power of anything you say after making it. The only point is to find the truth and make the best decisions based on that truth so how does labeling Jon Stewart as a leftist help you in doing that? Assess his arguments and minimize your emotions when you make this assessment. Do the same thing for Rush.
Stewart is clearly one of the funniest people on TV - brilliant, thoughtful humor. He comes off as smart as well. And he in no way hides that his show is a comedy, satire show, not to be taken seriously (though his motive often appears to be to use humor towards some serious end). Still, his interviews, including this one, very often pass over the line of humor to prod and into an attempt at serious discussion. That is when he fails. He attacks way too often with generalities, shallow assumptions and false superiority, then doesn't allow the guest anywhere near an opportunity at a full response.
In this case, as Cramer said, he's a commentator, not a reporter. His job is to opine, but the viewers job is to decide if it wants to agree or disagree with him.
I didn't read all of the comments.
Root problem: the woeful economic and financial education of our citizenry.
Especially bad since the employer based and government safety net programs are all casting everyone loose and making them fend for themselves.
Education and information are the bootstraps that we need to pull ourselves up.
So ignorant people think market timing and day trading and stock picking will make them some FAST MONEY.
I'd also like to add that Ric Edelman really exposed the financial newsletter/journalism industry years ago. I wish his criticisms were better known. Then Jon Stewart wouldn't have his undies in a bundle.
Has anybody noticed that the clips Jon Stewart showed of Cramer were not from CNBC, but off
the Cramer website? I thought it was misleading
of Stewart to show those clips as representive of CNBC when clearly they were not...but that is what Stewart does...mislead people through comedy.
Even if the DDN channel got started, would people watch it?
DDN - the Due Diligence Network.
No, it would be a yawner.
People want to believe they can get rich quick.
Only the greedy get conned.
Posted by marcus: "CNBC is the best business channel we have in America and they have done the best hard-hitting business journalism this country has ever seen. CEOs who go know they are going to get grilled. CNBC drills down to the truth."
Wow. That has to be the single most idiotic, uninformed post I have ever seen. And on this right-leaning blog, that's SAYING something!
Anyway. Rush Limbaugh sure is ruining the country, huh?
Nope, just the Republican Party, and even that wound is largely self-inflicted. When Democrats who've offended Stewart feel they have to publicly apologize to him, we can consider the two analogous.
Really, Treacher, you're usually better at this.
To the people here complaining Jon Stewart is a liberal: He's liberal, and has stated in interviews that he's a liberal on multiple occasions. It's not a secret that only a sharp mind reading between the lines can discover.
Go to his Wikipedia page for examples of him clearing stating, "I'm a liberal."
If you watch South Park, you're going to get libertarian satire.
If you watch the Daily Show, you're going to get liberal satire.
If you watch FoxNews, you're going to get unintentional conservative satire, with the the motto, "Fair and balanced."
Quote from the original post: "On the other hand, the Jon Stewart video that touched this off was clearly misleading....(I)t was obvious from the clips that half of them were anchors and reporters simply quoting someone else..."
I think this is a tad disingenous...who exactly was "being quoted" when the CNBC shill in the piece asked Allen "Ponzi Scheme" Stanford "Is it FUN being a billionaire?"
Are you f**king KIDDING me? THIS is insightful, hard-hitting interviewing??? And yet you seem to claim it's "misleading" to expose the network's ridiculous slurping on a criminal?
And before you say "He wasn't KNOWN as a criminal then!", well, isn't that the point? That SOMEONE at CNBC, whether it's Rick ("The 'losers' paid for my Armani!") Santelli, or Jim ("Waaa! It's not MY fault! They LIED to me!") Cramer, SHOULD HAVE BOTHERED TO CHECK!!!!!!!!
CNBC is, to paraphrase the popular GOP parlance, "JINO", as in "Journalists In Name Only".
But they were too much in the thrall of those they should have been investigating. They decided it was easier to "let the house burn down" than risk losing the all-important access. Yet when they HAD the access, the only thing they bothered to ask was whether they enjoyed the f**king Kid Rock concert!
Megan probably wonders why this is drawing so much response. It's pretty simple, and ties into a story from a few weeks back:
Just as the syncophantic sports media rolled over and never bothered to ask hard questions of Jim Calhoun (to avoid losing that all-important "access" by pissing him off), so did the supposed "journalists" at CNBC show their soft underbelly by thinking kissing up to the heads of BearStearns and Lehmans - and repeating their lies as "news" - was somehow "doing their jobs".
It wasn't.
And the fact that Stewart approached it in a less-than-genteel way does nothing to mitigate the accuracy of it.
What amazes me is how violent the conservatives are when it comes to criticism of Jon Stewart. Since we are talking about Cramer V. Stewart, I'll stay within the confines of Cramer V. Stewart.
Did anyone actually see the assertions made on Stewart's part last night? Cramer, for the most part, was in agreement. And even when he lied on several occasions about his role, on TDS, in creating undesirable stocks through rumors, unethical (but not illegal, as he points out) tactics and other misgivings in Wall Street there was Stewart with a B-roll to back up what he was asserting.
TDS is very obviously liberal and a few posters here think he has to rename the show "The Daily Show: We're Really ****ing Liberal!" But what are your takes on Bill O Reilly, who claims to skewer everyone "equally?" Or Fox News claims of "Fair and Balanced?" That's an entire NEWS NETWORK whose entire motto is supposed to encapsulate what makes proper news, news.
Are we watching the same show? I remember when Ron Paul was not allowed to go on the third Republican debate (though, arguably, he's the most Republican man left in the party). Guess who took him on? Jon Stewart, who gave him a decent amount of time to explain his views and positions.
I'd even ask, who has been on TDS more than any other person? John McCain.
What I saw last night was the liberal Stewart that comes out every now and then and really pushes the boundaries of the person he is interviewing. This happens, maybe, once in a blue moon (I'd say the latter part of Huckabee's interview regarding gay rights and McCain's 9thish interview stand out as a few) but what it shows is excellent argumentation. And that, ultimately, is the sad part: The jester does make these points that need to be addressed.
But then the only argument I'm hearing against him are "He's a satirist and a comedian! He should not be making such points!" I'd like to remind everyone that satire is entirely about representing one thing and, at the same time, making a point about the other. The Canterbury Tales, Huckleberry Finn, Catch-22 and even Dr. Strangelove frequently criticize in a tongue-in-cheek matter but bring up valid points.
BTW, someone pointed out that Cramer and Stewart have the same goals and the same show, which is very very scary. Stewart isn't suggesting tips that can sink or swim whole companies; that puts them at a different viewpoint. I hear "anyone who follows Cramer is an idiot." To that I say: Anyone who drinks and drives is an idiot. But people are still going to do both anyway and someone should point out the dangers of both. It's weird that a few users are pointing out the above viewpoint about Cramer and, in the same breath, claim it is wrong for JS to call him out on it.
And to the folks saying Stewart is "unfair" in his criticisms, well, is calling out hypocracy really unfair?
For example, one of the funniest bits I've seen on TDS recently was Stewart showing a clip of Bill O'Reilly railing about the "evil papparazzi", right before one showing his "stalker producers" harrassing people (who had criticized or ignored Billo) at their homes, in a mall parking lot, and on a freakin' BUS, for crying out loud! And how O'Reilly denounced the papparazzi for hassling Angelina Jolie, yet when Jolie had refused Faux News access to a recent premiere, suddenly it was OK to sic his "reporter" on her...
As funny as exposing that hypocracy was, the final point Stewart made - showing, unedited, a clip from "Factor" of another Billo anti-papparazzi rant RIGHT BEFORE A SEGMENT WHERE HIS STALKER-PRODUCER WAS HARRASSING SOMEONE! - was the classic "money shot".
Now, is that "leftist"? "Unfair"? Nope. Just funny. And accurate. Something O'Reilly wouldn't know about or understand.
Well, apparently the Democrats think he's causing a problem for them, or they wouldn't be making such a big deal of his dissent.
What do you call Cramer's TDS groveling?
Sez you!
Stewart isn't suggesting tips that can sink or swim whole companies
No, just whole countries. Like Megan suggested and Staash pointed-out, Stewart is a hypocrite: he's an entertainer who's schtick has become intertwined with his subject matter. That doesn't make him unfunny or stupid, but it makes his holier-than-thou preaching hard to take when he drops the facade and gets all serious.
It wouldn't matter if he were an equal-opportunity-satirist or if his mockery of the left had any teeth at all: humor is rooted in honesty and by failing to see, or denying the truth of his status (e.g., he's not just a comedian making fart noises) and situation (e.g., he's not worried about his mortgage payment) and how it affects his (i.e., the Daily Show's) point of view, his satire fails as commentary even if it is funny in a superficial, Gawker kind-of way.
That the Kilbourne and pre-success-Stewart Daily Show differs from the current Daily Show can be seen by interleaving a few episodes of each. The earlier stuff is absurdist satire, now it's mostly snarked-up, partisan, political sniping with a very occasional dose of absurdism. The old show provided an absurdist commentary on current events; the later version is an absurdist commentary on the state of journalism and politics, so it doesn't need to provide (further) absurdist commentary. The success of the original formulation killed that formulation but reaffirmed its underlying truth. My frustration with Stewart (and Kilbourne) is that he seemed to understand this, but turns-out to be just another fame whore with an emptiness to fill with the dogma of the day.
While I enjoy watching Cramer every night, one must remember the show is primarily entertainment. The financial networks exist to promote their advertisers financial and investment products. Who would expect them to warn about the credit bubble or coming Washington national debt collapse which will destroy much of the remaining private wealth in America today or what this will do to the dollar, the stock market, bonds, gold or the real estate market?
China is now worried about their dangerous over investment in US Treasury obligations. Washington ’s long-term choice is either repudiation or monetization. For monetization to be effective, the depreciation in the dollar would have to be substantial and this in turn would dramatically raise prices of imports for American consumers which would mean a tremendous drop in foreign imports. Debt monetization would cause more disruption to exporting nations than selective repudiation of Treasury debt.
The Campaign to Cancel the Washington National Debt By 12/22/2013 Constitutional Amendment is starting now in the U.S. See: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=67594690498&ref=ts
Thanks,
Ron with 30 plus years in the investment business and banking industry.
Throughout the progam Kramer says these guys were my freinds and they lied to me.
Therein lies the problem with much of the national media today financial and other wise.
The media is too cozy and too lazy. Too cozy with the people they cover (this is as true in Washington and as in New York, in political and in financial reporting. They are lied too and they are too lazy to check it out with other sources.
Too Cozy and Too Lazy.
Stewart's prescription: Use your power for good. Use your power for the people who are putting their life savings into a 401K rather than those who prey and play a game.
btw, I agree with Stewart's points about CNBC, et al and the state of journalism—financial or otherwise. His Crossfire / Tucker Carlson take-down was a public service. It's just disappointing to me that he can't see that his situation is so similar to Cramer's, Carlson's, or anybody else's. When The Daily Show was an afterthought somewhere on the cable dial, the "just a stupid comedy show" schtick worked fine; using it now is just playing the same game that the show ostensibly mocks. Stewart could remedy his hypocrisy by admitting that he and his show are now firmly ensconced with the system they mock and turn the satire on themselves. If Stewart had said "roll 208" and it showed Stewart hocking product on his show (like, say, Obama's appearance last fall) and he feigned the same sort of chagrin he demanded of Cramer it would make his underlying point more honest, more poignant, less bullying, and as a result funnier.
Man it's fun watching Megan's continued meltdown ever since she got completely called out for shilling for CNBC's Santelli and the Freedomworks gang. Reading this desperate blog entry attempt at salvaging her sleazeball pals' reps is pure popcorn fun. Megan, just write the truth: "I'm still so red in the face from the bitch-slapping I took when I failed to discredit the Playboy story that blew open this whole CNBC takedown, that I'm obsessing every night, looking desperately for a way to stop it. I can't let it go. So I'll keep doubling down my lame propaganda attempts... yeah, I have a clever idea: I'll pretend like I'm not a fan of CNBC, like I have no bone to pick, like I'm non-partisan...and then try to discredit Stewart, taking the position as "one of the people." This strategy has worked for my boyfriend's sponsors at Freedomworks before, it should work for me too!" Megan, seriously, get over it, give it up, and move on. You didn't get fired even though your editors considered it; just give it up and let it go.
So, is Megan's redfacedness supposed to have happened before or after "the Playboy story that blew open this whole CNBC takedown" was deleted from their blog?
Big FU posted: "Who cares about Jon Stewart? If you want to know what's in store, look at Dennis Miller. Throughout the 90s, his politically incorrect right wing rants provided a career for him. Then Bush came along and it just wasn't funny any more. Now they're both washed-up hacks.
Stop kidding yourselves: Stewart built his entire career off of ripping on Bush. Once Obama's approval numbers drop into the low 40s (and they'll get there by the end of this year), we'll see how funny The Daily Show is."
Well, after 9/11, everyone said "Irony is dead", but TDS and Stewart have stayed relevant (and Stewart's first show after 9/11 was actually pretty moving), and the foibles of the Bushies only made his job easier.
The reason Miller fell off the cliff was his being admittedly totally in the bag for Bush after 9/11. Miller refused to be critical of Bush in the same way he had been so acidly harsh on Clinton in the 90s - and thus his relevance dried up. The one thing that makes a political comic boring and meaningless is becoming a cheerleader only in support of one side. Hence the reason Faux News has failed miserably when they've attempted humor ("The 1/2 Hour News Hour", "Geraldo"). And when formerly interesting/funny people like Victoria Jackson go and cram the right-wing stick up their own ass, it really makes you shake your head.
Basically, Miller's not funny anymore because he hamstrung himself. So now he's relegated to being O'Reilly's braying shill. It's truly sad.
As to the likelihood of TDS becoming irrelevant, don't count on it. The easily-parodied things the right does (the Steele/Limbaugh dustup, Jindal's speech, Cantor's viral AFSCME video, Newt II: Electric Boogaloo, O'Reilly in general) won't be stopping anytime soon. And Stewart will still keep Obama's feet to the fire on Iraq and the economy.
Also, there is no lack of CNBCs in the world that need to be hoisted on their own petards. And Stewart is just the guy to do it.
"btw, I agree with Stewart's points about CNBC, et al and the state of journalism—financial or otherwise. His Crossfire / Tucker Carlson take-down was a public service. It's just disappointing to me that he can't see that his situation is so similar to Cramer's, Carlson's, or anybody else's. When The Daily Show was an afterthought somewhere on the cable dial, the "just a stupid comedy show" shtick worked fine; using it now is just playing the same game that the show ostensibly mocks. Stewart could remedy his hypocrisy by admitting that he and his show are now firmly ensconced with the system they mock and turn the satire on themselves. If Stewart had said "roll 208" and it showed Stewart hocking product on his show (like, say, Obama's appearance last fall) and he feigned the same sort of chagrin he demanded of Cramer it would make his underlying point more honest, more poignant, less bullying, and as a result funnier."
But isn't that the whole point? Who *doesn't* know The Daily Show is left-leaning? The fact that it's on Comedy Central further takes away the bite of looking at it as a news network.
The weird thing is those that decry TDS are saying "It has liberal bias and people watch it like real news!" I think you all are missing the point I, and every, left-leaning person is making: We already watch and decimate news from other sources; we watch TDS so it can take the piss out of said stories.
And for anyone that is right-wing, I don't know how you can call Jon Stewart a coward on one day (when his show has been paired with Crank Yankers, Drawn Together, and Blue Collared Comedy Tour) for not putting a logo that says "Liberal" at the bottom right of all episodes and then continue to get your news source from Fox, which claims to be fair and balanced. *THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A BALANCED NEWS SOURCE* That's why you read many of them and don't just stick with NPR and ABC or Fox and the Drudge Report.
It's just the fact that Stewart isn't in line with conservative thinking that seems to be your problem. And, I'll argue again, the 3-4 times he's asked hard-hitting questions they were *excellent* points that those being asked had a hard time addressing. Even this whole thing with Cramer, no matter how you spin it, really shows the fallacy in Cramer's argumentation.
He spent 24 minutes saying he was in the wrong and should have done better; you guys are defending a man who says he was guilty of doing unethically dubious things and has advocated it as such. He has a show where he throws bulls at the screen and then he has a webcast from 3 years ago talking about ways to undervalue a stock through speculation. Isn't that a tad strange?
The argument being made right now is "Jon Stewart shouldn't be allowed to argue," which, if pointing out the fallacy of a 3 page report asking for 700 billion dollars happens to be funny, he does. That's satire, folks.
This happened last year when Stewart really pressed Huckabee on his viewpoints of gay rights; people were saying he overstepped his boundaries with questions like that, but they were arguing about arguing, not about the point itself. It would be like someone talking about how great the Communist Manifesto is and, instead of coming back with The Wealth of Nations, or points made in Atlas Shrugged, I simply say "Why are we talking about politics?" instead of addressing the point itself.
Well, apparently the Democrats think he's causing a problem for them, or they wouldn't be making such a big deal of his dissent.
Exactly backwards: The Limbaugh apologies are making the GOP look like idiots; of course the Democrats are glad to point that out.
When Democrats who've offended Stewart feel they have to publicly apologize to him, we can consider the two analogous.
What do you call Cramer's TDS groveling
Is Cramer even a Democrat? He's certainly not an elected or party official. And he's groveling for having been dishonest and incompetent, not for daring to offend Jon Stewart.
But, sure, otherwise they're identical situations.
Really, Treacher, you're usually better at this.
Sez you!
OK, if you prefer: Treacher, you're always terrible at this.
Stewart is only going after Cramer and CNBC because they dared to criticize Obama. Is it okay for Stewart to be a leftie and attack those who criticize his beloved Barack? Sure it is. Is it stinkin' hypocritical of him to go into high dudgeon mode and act as if he's doing us all a public service by attacking CNBC, when he's only doing it to defend BO? Sure it is. Like Megan said, anyone who gets their stock advice from CNBC oughta be a ward of the state. But Stewart didn't give a fig about CNBC's bad calls last April - or September - or December - or even this January. No, he got his knickers in a twist only after the business community began whacking Obama for freakin' out the market and bringing it down a couple thousand points since I-Day. Thing is, it wasn't supposed to be this way. Stewart, and the people who love him, thought that BO and his gang were such geniuses that they'd have everything fixed within a few weeks. Surely (as did in fact happen after FDR was sworn in) there would at least be substantial improvement after a couple months. Instead, rather than going up 35% as it did in FDR's first 50 days, the market went DOWN some 25% in BO's first 50 days. So Stewart freaked because these Wall Street fat cats were ruining the party. And he declared war.
All of that's fine. Stewart has a constitutional right to be as such. But I just think we all oughta be crystal clear about the fact that Stewart is an apparatchik of the DNC, and nothin' more.
This is in response to MEGAN, BASIC FACT, and the rest of the morons who don't understand satire and/or are bitter that the dominance the Republican party had on account of Bush being president when 9/11 occurred has worn off.
First of all, I'm sorry, but either you all slept through the part of high school English class where they focus on the nature of satire, or you're all horribly dishonest (I'd imagine it's some combination thereof). Jon Stewart is neither merely a comedian, nor is he in any way an actual journalist who reports everything at face value. He does have an agenda--it is not so much pro-liberal anti-conservative as it is pro-logic anti-bullshit, but I will touch on that later. The fact that he is not merely a comedian--that he does have often have serious messages he is trying to get across--does not mean he should be held to the same standards as anyone in the actual news media, whether they be Bill O'Reilly or Keith Olbermann. The reason for this is simple, IT IS CALLED SATIRE. It is not mere comedy in the sense that within the comedy, to varying degrees, are clear messages meant to be taken seriously (sometimes it's pure comedy, more often it's an agenda given in a humorous manner, and rarely you will witness an almost complete abandonment of the comedy factor like most of the interview with Cramer). However, the fact that Stewart is usually trying to make a point DOES NOT MEAN HIS EXACT WORDS SHOULD BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY. Satire is a style that frequently employs irony as a device of communication. In case that's too mature of a concept for you to comprehend, I'll restate that more simplistically: when he wants you to take him literally, Stewart's entire style and tone will change into one that is much more somber. When Stewart is being sarcastic and ironic, he will use indicators such as a fake voice, or obviously exaggerating statements in a way that is clearly meant to be mocking people who call themselves actual journalists and not meant to be taken at face value.
Occasionally, the show will completely forego communicating anything significant and will be pure silly comedy, and less frequently than that they will almost completely abandon humor and speak formally on something, as you saw for most of Stewart's interview with Cramer. But most of the time, there will be a larger message communicated to viewers via a style that uses obvious sarcasm and irony to satirically promote their beliefs. You can see this discrepancy in style of delivery in the way that the clips of Cramer and other CNBC reporters giving awful advice about companies that were soon to collapse were deliberately meant to be funny, while in Stewart's interview with Cramer, the same ideas were being expressed but in a much more direct way.
Which brings me to my next point; is Stewart's agenda strictly liberal? I would argue that Keith Olbermann is a liberal (but his well known partisanship does not lead to dishonest distorting on anywhere near the same level as Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly), but though Jon Stewart leans to the left, his agenda is much more to illuminate bullshit when he sees it. Was he more critical of Bush as he is now being of Obama? Yes, but Bush was the worst president in history. You can make a case for that title to go to Andrew Johnson or James Buchanan for their backwards approaches towards the South in the buildup and aftermath of the Civil War respectively. But in terms of dishonesty, in terms of directly opposing some of our founding principles such as the separation of powers (except for when both chambers of Congress were controlled by the GOP or when the Supreme Court agreed with him, then they were ok), in terms of cronyism, in terms of wasting money on tax cuts to the those who least needed them (which also happens to be the least effective way of stimulating the economy, look up the concept marginal propensity to consume if you disagree) and on a war that would have never had over a 50% approval if the media did not let them get away with linking Saddam to al-Qaeda (the epitome of ignorance, being as Saddam was a secular tyrant who saw Islamic fundamentalists as threats to his power) and unfounded claims of WMDs... I could go on forever, but the point is that being harsher on Bush--who never failed to put his friends and former business partners ahead of his country or the world--than on Obama--who is well spoken and has so far focused most of his efforts on helping the economy and the millions of people who are losing their homes and their jobs--does not serve as evidence of a liberal bias.
It is like Stephen Colbert said back when he was still on The Daily Show: "Facts in Iraq clearly have an anti-Bush agenda." Stewart isn't less harsh on Bush than Obama because he's liberal, Obama just doesn't give him as much material to work with. Back in 2002 and 2003 when the Bush people were equating challenges to their dishonest and illogical approach to Iraq with unpatriotic dissent (and don't tell me I'm wrong, WMDs and linking Saddam to al-Qaeda were dishonest, failing to adequately plan for the aftermath of the dismantling of the ruling Baathist party was illogical), it was truly sickening how successful they were. Fox News was to be expected, but CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, the majority of Congressional Democrats, even the fucking New York Times failed miserably in their duty to challenge the Bush administration's blatant lies, deceit, and stupidity (such as not protecting massive stockpiles of weapons in one of the most militarized nations in the world--about 400,000 guns were stolen in the aftermath of Saddam's fall, and while it wouldn't have required a phd to figure out that those weapons would end up in the hands of insurgents we would soon be fighting, they were too busy protecting oil fields to think about the civil war that would ensue in a destabilized region that had been fighting each other for decades before Saddam's tyrannical rule).
Why do I bring this up? Other than that it defends my assertion that Bush's legacy will be a combination of malevolence and ineptitude, it also defends my assertion that Stewart's intentions are much more to hold people accountable for what they say rather than promoting a liberal agenda. Though not as much air time was devoted to them because they were the ones sitting complacently on the bus headed for the edge of a cliff and not the bus drivers, Stewart routinely berated the cowardly Democrats like John Kerry and Hillary Clinton for their role in the Iraq War with just as much disdain as he did for the Bush administration. He also routinely mocked Kerry during the 04 campaign; while he was obviously hoping Kerry would win ("vote for the guy who will make my job harder" is what he told viewers the night before the 04 election), that did not stop him from regularly calling Kerry out for his pathetically phony attempts to appeal to blue collar workers in the midwest.
Also, one of the biggest victims of Stewart's often scathing criticism in the history of The Daily Show would be Rod Blagojevich. While this is an even easier target than Bush, if Stewart's chief concern was promoting a liberal agenda, wouldn't he want to avoid the subject of a corrupt Democrat trying to auction of a Senate appointment? Wouldn't he have concluded that it would be best to avoid/minimize airtime dedicated to calling this disgusting creep what he was if The Daily Show was intended to espouse liberal propaganda? Yet for weeks Stewart devoted as much attention to Blagojevich as anything, and he mocked him as viciously as anyone.
Please tell me, what is it that Obama has done so far that merits as much scorn as any of the 500 most fucked up things Bush did in office? My condition for that question is that you can only answer with something about fiscal discipline if you were a fierce opponent of Bush. Obama is increasing the already staggering deficit he inherited, thereby also expanding the massive debt Bush left him, but unless you are a true libertarian/small government supporter--which would require strong opposition to Bush's fiscally reckless budgets (not to mention how they were deliberately doctored to hide their true costs)--I do not recognize your ability to speak on this subject in the slightest bit. Bush was the first president in history to cut taxes in wartime--that's fiscal irresponsibility. Stimulating the economy via tax cuts aimed at the wealthy is also fiscally irresponsible, being as most economists agree that because of their comparatively low marginal propensity to consume, tax cuts for the wealthy are one of the most expensive, least efficient ways of stimulating the economy. So if you did not speak up when Bush was turning a surplus into record deficits when the economy was not even in that bad of shape (at least compared to now) with tax cuts to the people who least needed them (or who would spend the lowest percentage of their tax cut, hence being an inefficient method of stimulus) and a war that was entirely misguided, dishonest, and unnecessary but is going to cost us easily over $1 trillion by the time Obama brings home all the troops, then I do not want to hear anything from you about passing debt onto our grandchildren. FDR passed on a lot of debt to the grandchildren of his time--us--but he did so building roads and bridges, and fixing up schools, not to mention defeating fascism. I'd say that while that debt was passed down to future generations, being that it protected the world from the Japanese and Nazi's attempts to impose their totalitarian will, and that it enabled our economy to grow tremendously in the post WW2 era by greatly expanding our infrastructure, we benefitted from sources of that debt at least as much as we had to pay for it. I challenge you to say the same thing about the debt Bush built up with a stupid war based on lies and tax cuts for those with most means in our society.
Also, one last thing I have to point out to BASIC FACT. While you may have seen Obama's speech on race as "fodder" worthy of more scorn than becoming President because your brother was governor of a state that was lost by a small enough margin to cheat (aided by the illegitimate purging of thousands of black voters in that state), conventional wisdom was that it was the best speech in decades. Also, if you really do watch The Daily Show regularly, then you will recall that Stewart did not hesitate to make jokes about Wright--being that Obama's campaign strategy towards Wright was, more so than any of their other ways of handling him, to avoid the subject and wait for that storm to be overtaken by the nation's desire to discuss issues that actually matter, it's a safe bet that they were not pleased that Jon Stewart helped to perpetuate Wright's role on the national scene.
No, you've got it exactly backwards. (Hey, this is easy!)
Not only is he a Democrat, he was a vocal Obama supporter during the campaign. His bad picks weren't a problem back then, apparently.
Are they somehow mutually exclusive?
I prefer to think of it as differently competent! Like Geithner.
And yet he has a habit of using one to provide cover for the other, switching back and forth with breathtaking speed.
Whoa! Let's not go overboard here.
But isn't that the whole point? Who *doesn't* know The Daily Show is left-leaning?
Partisan or ideological concerns aside, Stewart's problem is different: he's is making a point about integrity, hypocrisy, and responsibility. To do so effectively—as he has—he needs a bully pulpit, which has been afforded him by the very system that he is criticizing and mocking. To act as though he is outside of this system or immune to its seductions is disingenuous and undermines the very valid point he's trying to make. To those sympathetic to his message because of it's content and not its partisan appeal, that's pretty significant.
If he acknowledged that he's part of a corrupting system, has benefitted enormously from it, and continues to operate within that system, then his point would be more forceful. As it stands, his difference with Cramer on this issue, is that Cramer—for whatever reason—admits his complicity in the system.
Someone claimed that Stewart is the 21st Century Conkite, and people thinks Stewart is fullfilling the watchdog role that the media refuses to do.
I think that is partially true, but what Stewart REALLY wants is for the MEDIA to fillfull the watchdog role, and to ask the tough questions. That was the point he was trying to make to Cramer.
And that is the point Stewart has been trying to make over the last few years. Does anyone who watched his showdown with the two Cross Fire guys in 2004? His point back then was that the media was becoming mere mouthpieces for both political parties.
What Stewart would like is for the media to shape up, ask tough questions to both political parties, and serve as the watchdog for the public.
I see that some of the people who wrote below me are as ignorant of the meaning of SATIRE as BASIC FACT, so I will repeat it in hopes that they at least consider it when saying that Jon Stewart is part of the problem.
JOURNALISM IS SUPPOSED TO BE DIRECT COMMUNICATION OF INFORMATION. Reporting is supposed to be factual and without bias (being that facts are based on perception, which is inherently biased, achieving this perfectly is impossible, but the idea is to come as close to objectivity as possible). THIS IS WHY JON STEWART IS NOT A JOURNALIST. THIS IS WHY HE IS NOT PERPETUATING THE PROBLEM. It is not just because he is a comedian, which I will admit he is far too quick to bring up when people try to engage him, because he knows that while his audience is largely made up of young stoner/slacker types, he is well aware that he also directly courts intellectuals, but he doesn't admit it.
This still does not mean he is a part of the problem he fights. IF HE WAS A JOURNALIST (which by definition would make him not a satirist, just as being a satirist by definition makes him not a journalist) HE WOULD BE A PART OF THE PROBLEM, BUT IF HE APPEARS TO BE HYPOCRITICAL ON HIS SHOW TO YOU, THEN YOU ARE ALMOST UNDOUBTEDLY NOT PICKING UP ON/NOT COMPREHENDING THE WAY SATIRE IS MEANT TO INDIRECTLY CONVEY A MESSAGE IN A WAY THAT ACTUAL JOURNALISM NEVER COULD.
You'd think this was a pretty basic concept...
Hey folks calm down. Remember this article was written by someone in the business section of the magazine. Like maybe she and the mag have a vested interest in supporting CNBC. Atlantic Business makes money trying to convince its readers that they are providing truthful information. What happens if readers start to question whether they are actually getting the unvarnished truth? Maybe they are just seeing CNBC in print.
THAT'S ALL I WAS SAYIN'.
"Hey folks calm down. Remember this article was written by someone in the business section of the magazine. Like maybe she and the mag have a vested interest in supporting CNBC. Atlantic Business makes money trying to convince its readers that they are providing truthful information. What happens if readers start to question whether they are actually getting the unvarnished truth? Maybe they are just seeing CNBC in print."
So, did Jews do 9/11, or Bush?
Wow, I see a lot of animosity directed at Bush in this thread. Can anyone please explain to me (at length, and with specific details, preferably) why he was such a bad president?
I thought he did a pretty good job.
I'd also appreciate any convincing arguments about why Obama will do a better job.
Thanks in advance.
Tsotha
I'd be willing to bet that your actual knowledge of economics is piss poor. Either that or you have an incredibly rigid, ideological point of view about economics, but the fact that you have nothing to say about Geithner except that he's a "tax cheat" means it's probably more ignorance than dogmatism.
Do you know how many people unintentionally don't pay all of their taxes because of a miscalculation or an accidental omission? A lot. A lot a lot. When you have a large income coming from a diverse range of sources, the different tax laws that are relevant and the calculation of figures are quite arduous and complicated. While Geithner's responsibilities at the Fed were more complex and detailed, they were also far more important to get right than his taxes, and other than not speaking up when it was decided to let Lehman fail, he did a pretty good job working at the Fed. This matters a lot more than the fact that he messed up on his income taxes, which happens with millions of people every year and is actually one of the lesser factors of our budget woes when compared to fraud, off-shore banking, or the ill-advised but legal tax cuts Bush enacted that mostly when to the top 1%--and within that category to the top 1% of them more than the bottom 1%.
There are plenty of relevant things to criticize Geithner for, such as his failure to offer any details on a banking rescue except for broad comments about the need to pump more capital into the economy. Also, his decision while working at the Fed to not speak out about the consequences of letting Lehman fail--whether out of cowardice or not considering how widespread Lehman's fall would extend into the global economy--was wholly uninspiring. I have yet to be particularly impressed with anything he's done, either as Treasury Secretary or when he work in the Fed, but I have to say that bringing up his minor tax issue--which, by the way, has been resolved--is nothing but partisan hackery.
Next point: Until 2011, nobody's taxes are going up. Once we reach 2011, people who make over $250,000/year will see their taxes return to Clinton levels--I don't think they'll suffer. (By the way, the argument that this would apply to small businesses is highly misleading, as that is only true if said small business made over $250,000 profit after covering expenses like paying salaries and distributors--which is not many of them). Nobody else's taxes are going up, at least not in Obama's first term. To suggest otherwise is either ignorant or dishonest.
Next point will be summed up with a simple challenge: find me a respected economist who is advocating shrinking the size of the government right now. Only the hardcore free-marketers would advocate that, and their days in the field of economics are numbered. Shrinking the size of the government right now, in the midst of the most severe recession since before WW2, would cause the unemployment rate to shoot well into double digits.
Next point: Earmarks often are wasteful. Putting aside that this is not always so, and that they are explicitly protected in the Constitution, consider carefully this fact the next time you go all McCain about earmarks. Earmarks in total account for about $30-40 billion in spending per year. Considering that Bush brought the deficit up to over $700 billion, and that practical economics requires it going over $1 trillion, Earmarks are a little too insignificant to make a serious issue out of considering how much more important things are going on in this dire time. Not to mention that, as I said, they are not always wasteful spending, and they are clearly protected in the Constitution.
"You'd have to be a pretty retarded or very partisan comedian to overlook all that." - Tsotha
Alas, never underestimate the extent of ignorance in America, especially from those who speak as if they are learned.
Staash
Search for anything I've written on this blog for a number of arguments for why Bush sucked so much--though far from all that could be presented. Perhaps I'll write more later but I need to stop writing on this blog for right now.
Ben G, that's a shame. I've read your arguments, and I appreciate them, but I look forward to more.
Pretty obvious you don't watch the daily show.
But Stewart carefully claims he's just an entertainer, so he has no obligation to hew to journalistic standards on things like quoting out of context.
That's what Stewart does: he makes totally glib and intellectually dishonest arguments whenever it suits him while conveniently hiding behind "just a comedian," but at the same time desperately wants to be taken seriously as a primary news/analysis source (hence the pugnacious engagement with regular news folk).
Frankly, I miss Craig Kilborn. Back then it was a much better show that focused on being funny and didn't have a large, awkward political axe to grind.
Next point will be summed up with a simple challenge: find me a respected economist who is advocating shrinking the size of the government right now.
You seriously think it would be hard to find an economist who thinks the government is too large?
Only the hardcore free-marketers would advocate that, and their days in the field of economics are numbered.
This is so stupid you should shoot yourself for the sake of the gene pool. Free-market economics has done more good for more people than all the social programs ever proposed by the left. One recession doesn't throw out decades of irrefutable evidence that the free market works. FFS, even the Communist Chinese have embraced free market economics.
Nobody else's taxes are going up, at least not in Obama's first term.
Yeah, sure. It's not like Obama would renege on a campaign promise.
It's been obvious since long before Obama was elected that he couldn't keep all his him promises on taxes and spending. And that was before the massive shortfall in taxes caused by the recent downturn.
I don't know how the edited clips can be misleading. he clearly puts the dates of shows when cramer said bear stearns and lehman are good buys and they went bust within few weeks. he even says that. mcardle did you buy into what scarborough said in morning joe ? that stewart has 100 people working on him to find videos. he doesnt have 100 people working for him.
there was a lot of chatter about cramer being dishonest or stupid in his stock judgements a long time among common people like me. i wasn't surprised that JS picked it up. i was actually expecting Jon to pick it up sometime soon.
if i remember correctly there was a mild mock on cramer in either comedy central or somewhere else a year or so ago.
By scumby: "Poor little smug Obama butt boy Jon Stewart. Not talented enough to get a network talkshow. Even lame sad sacks like Jimmy Fallon and Kimmel have one. Talented people like Steven Colbert and Ed Helms to name two have left the Daily Show and Jon in the dust."
Funny. I don't watch network talk shows. They don't interest me. That's just me, though.
Love Colbert.. a liberal posing as a right-wing O'Reilly. lol!! Don't know who Ed Helms is. :/
scumby: "...Jon is also a huge coward playing out of context years old video instead of debating like a real man."
Wasn't Jon trying to debate Cramer?
Doesn't anyone find it ironic that Jon Stewart criticized CNBC, which is owned by GE, which owns MSNBC, which is the liberal equilavent of Fox News?
Just saying....
I just want to be Megan's 400th comment :-) congrats Megan!!
$40,000 is now a "minor tax issue"! For the guy in charge of collecting our taxes. Nothing to see here, folks, move it along.
Good point.
I find it pretty amusing you can call me ignorant and follow up with a post like that. You're living in a fantasy world composed of equal parts childish credulity and fuzzy memory. I was just trying to point out there's plenty of meat here for an honest comedian, but since you've decided to deal with it in a little more depth I'll play along.
Oh really? He was at the helm at the New York Fed and doesn't get any blame for what happened? How do you know he "didn't speak up" as opposed to supporting the policy? What is it he did that qualifies as a "pretty good job"? On the tax thing it's impossible for me to believe it was a mistake. People in his position don't do their own taxes unless they're trying to hide something. Geithner is either stupid or crooked - we can afford neither.
Does social security not count as a tax because we don't call it a tax? What happens if you don't pay it? Do you really think we'll be out of the woods in 2011, and will you support an extension of the tax cuts if we aren't?
As if Obama ever had any intention of doing anything but massively increasing the size of the government. The numbers didn't add up during the campaign, and they still don't. I would have a little more sympathy if I thought it had anything to do with economics, but there's a big difference between raising NEA member salaries and building the Hoover Dam.
This is flat wrong. There's no protection for earmarks in the constitution, explicit or otherwise. In fact, by any reasonable reading of the document most of the budget is unconstitutional. I suggest you ponder what the budget would look like if the courts hadn't given the commerce clause a good reaming. But let's pretend you are right, and that there actually is support for earmarks in the constitution. Why did Obama pledge to eliminate them?
Most earmarks are payoffs for campaign contributions. The actual dollar value of the earmarks is far less important than the entrenched corruption that accompanies them. Most people realize this, and it's why that particular pledge was popular.
Jon Stewart performed a much needed public service by showing us that financial forecasting only seems to make astrology look respectable. In our capitalist mind set everyone is looking for a get rich quick fix. Disappointment is just a business broadcast away!
Good news, Obama is now considering a proposal he once mocked as “the largest middle-class tax increase in history.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/15/us/politics/15health.html?_r=1
No doubt Jon Stewart will find nothing to make fun of here.
Stewart is guilty of doing to political news exactly what he cries about Cramer doing to financial news: he treats it like it's a game. Taking things out of context is a routine part of his hypocritical schtick. And contrary to claims of his admirers, he doesn't always make it apparent when he's doing so.
I think this topic is pretty much exhausted. For example, to Brian G.'s point that
"Stewart is guilty of doing to political news exactly what he cries about Cramer doing to financial news"
as Stewart said in the interview, they're both snake oil sailsmen, but Stewart labels his product as snake oil. Brian G's point has been made a hundred times, my point has been made a hundred times.
And on and on we'll go, I guess.
I'd be interested in Megan's reaction to this comment-fest.
Where is Megan's evidence that "Santelli was against all bailouts from the beginning"? I've looked everywhere for evidence of that and never found it. Everytime one of those shady tea party sites claims that about Santelli, they give you a link to a YouTube of Santelli in September, where he never says he's against the bailout. He yells a lot, but he says "I agree something has to be done." Can someone please provide specific evidence where he is against every single bailout?
Stewart & Cramer are both entertainers. In defense of Cramer: MAD MONEY is not core investing; it is money that you can afford to lose, period.
Santelli is right. He is part of the backlash that those who worked within the rules are getting the shaft and will pay dearly for these bailouts of all types.
Then why should we take him seriously?
@La Marque: So why did Santelli issue a statement saying he supports Obama and he hopes Obamas stimulus succeeds? And why can't someone produce evidence somewhere that Santelli was against all the other bailouts as Megan and other people close to Santelli keep saying but never prove?
1. Just came back from the weekend and noticed the same two conflicting liberal defenses of Stewart:
"He's just a non-serious comedian! Ignore him!"
"He's Edward R. Murrow!"
Look, the first problem is that that the two views are incompatible. Satire can be serious (i.e. pointed, with a purpose) or non-serious (i.e. silly, merely for humor's sake, ignorable).
For example, someone like Adam Sandler, whose movies contain satires, have no discernible political point; its merely for humor's sake that a violent, silly manchild inherits 40 billion dollars and beats up an opera singer or a cologne-covered would-be mugger. Attack his satire, and he can rightly retreat into "I'm just a comedian, its just silly" and its true; his only purpose is to make you laugh.
However, when you claim your satire is serious---i.e. that you are making a point with it---then you cannot be "just being funny" by definition because you have just stated your comedy has two points: to be funny and to make a point. When you advocate or argue a point using satire, you must admit to the ludicrousness of your own opinion and own up to your own position's failings.
Put another way, if you argue that your point has merit, you can't defend yourself by saying your criticism is meritless.
Stewart tries to have his cake and eat it, too. He would certainly say his satirical criticism are valid, otherwise his entire tirade on Cramer is forgetable and Cramer is perfectly legitimate. And once you claim that your argument is legitimate, you can't retreat and hide by saying that it's illegitimate.
Stewart's weaselliness comes from a basic fact about his style: when he is winning a debate or argument, he claims his criticism are valid; however, when he is losing, when an opponent is giving him tit-for-tat or making good points (e.g. Tucker Carlson's criticism on Crossfire), he runs and hides.
2. Some people here have asserted that because Stewart has asserted he is "not fair" that is some sort of admission of "bias."
Bias is not the same as fairness. For example, take William Buckley and his former show on PBS. Buckley was clearly biased, in that he was clearly for the conservative viewpoint and ran the show, but fair in that he always gave his guests equal time to make their points and didn't lord over them with his powers as host/controller of his show. No one who has watched or appeared on his show would say that Buckley was anything less than a gentleman to them and perfectly fair.
In contrast, take McLoughlin on "The McGloughlin Group." Here's a man who is unbiased---his opinions are all over the map, and doesn't advocate for either liberal or conservative view points---but he is certainly (and humorously) unfair---shouting down people, interrupting, yelling, cutting off people for "boring" him, and all sorts of tongue-in-cheek childish nonsense. Dana Carvey's impression was well done.
Stewart's claiming that he is not "fair" is not the same as "admitting bias," as my examples hopefully illustrate.
Stewart has denied his show is biased against the right wing and in favor of the left wing. He has stated that even though people say TDS is liberal, TDS really only make fun of people in power. That is a denial of bias that people are asserting.
If Stewart came out and said he was biased, that criticism drops. He has not, to my knowledge. And to those of you claiming he is open with his bias, I encourage you to scroll up and read the dozens of posts where various TDS fans/liberals claim he is not biased, merely telling the truth. If they are honestly confused about Stewart's bias, then Stewart isn't being honest about his bias.
3. It's nice to see that the TDS writing staff is on here valiantly defending their lying, cowardly, and hypocritical boss.
Guys, your show is both biased and unfair.
Too long a post, Hons, can you outline this to make it easier to read while surfing the net?
And who is ERM in anyone's life today?
http://townhall.com/cartoons/2009/03/13/11
and
http://townhall.com/cartoons/2009/03/13/12
I'm not the only one thinking this....
Megan's just mad because the NYT dropped her for conflict of interest when she plugged her boyfriend's ex-bosses.
What's the problem, he is FAIR AND BALANCED!!!
Oh, defending Santelli, the "Love thy neighbor" guy?
Good, good, the dark force is strong with you...