The TV Zone

Cramer is the winner by a TKO. The more you listen to listen to Cramer one can realize that OBAMA will be history in the next 60-days. Obama and McCain are guilty of lying to America about the state of the economy. They ran every bell two or therr times and told Americans our economy was sick and failing. Duh,,, this made people believe that they shouldn't spend money and then when so many people didn't open their wallets and spend money..... the economy went south, and then further south, and is near depression levels. I thin we need Bush back......

Stewart and Cramer are both irrelevant. Cramer is Chicken Little. And Stewart, well Stewart is a comedian, who happens to use satire, not a satirist. And, he's no more adept at it than Letterman or Leno during their monologues each night. And, Verne, there was no need for the apology.

Cramer ........RULES

Stewart sounds like Martha outside the kitchen...... no wonder OSCAR is no long his friend

Between this fiasco and the Cheerleading before the Iraq war., it's clear that journalism in the US is suffering in quality. We can blame the media companies for letting the interests of their owners and sponsors for getting in the way of truthful reporting and the American people for having the attention span of a nat.

I recently saw a Daily Show rerun that discussed the Cramer/Stewart imbroglio. This was after I saw a poll on AOL asking readers to answer the question: Is Jon Stewart out to get Jim Cramer? (Huh??) I answered NO, since it only seemed reasonable, and I had not yet seen the show. Anyway, this seems to be another case of REAL journalists confusing themselves with Mr Stewart, an entertainer and comedian. Mr Stewart has never represented himself as an expert on any topic. He even disparages his comedic talents. Persons may or may not agree with him about being funny - but for Mr Cramer to have cried on every NBC show on which he could get booked, was the ridiculous taken to the sublime. I have seen Mr Cramer's show, before and after he lost his partner. Mr Cramer presents himself as an expert on the stock market. He was distressingly wrong in his predictions. Instead of stepping up and admitting to his errors of judgement, Mr Cramer has instead attempted to divert attention to Mr Stewart. I recall another news show doing this. It didn't work for them either.

David,

You're part of the problem, stupid. Stewart vs. Cramer segment was genius. Cramer can't defend himself. He sucked. He even skipped Morning Joe. How pitiful!

David,

You're part of the problem, stupid. Stewart vs. Cramer segment was genius. Cramer can't defend himself. He sucked. He even skipped Morning Joe. How pitiful!

Between the two Jim Cramer or Jon Stewart I will take Jim Cramer.
Jon Stewert is just another entertainer who supports the liberals in office.
Jim Cramers advice saved us a ton of money. I have yet to see anything that Jon Stewart has done but try and be funny.

Jon Stewart should be ridiculed and taken to task in much the same way as he operated with Cramer. He manipulates the truth under the guise of comedy and spins it off as crusading. But if challenged he simply hides under his desk saying that he is simply a "snake oil sales man" and therefore has no real responsibility. He is sort of the bespectacled nerd that infuriates others and then pleads that one can't hit a man with glasses. He should be irrelavant, but the disgusting fact is that he has a formidable audience.

I'm not here to defend Cramer or Wall Street or for that matter anyone. I saw this crisis coming in 1984. I would suspect that if I saw it coming that a whole lot of other smarter people must have seen it coming as well. The truth is, is that the government needed the funding. We are a debtor nation. We are a debtor society.

Jon Stewart is fond of bolstering Clinton's administration as being fiscally responsible. No they weren't. They; the Clinton administration is fond of boasting that they had a balanced budget and made the most milloinaires of any precious Presidency. No they didn't. On face value sure, but not if you want to be truthful about it.

The Clinton administration was the benefactor of both the Internet bubble and the Biotech bubble; two of the largest financial rallies in history. When these bubbles sold off, billions if not trillions of dollars became fodder for the government’s tax machine. Hence how Clinton was fiscally responsible. He raped the system and apparently wasn't smart enough to know that it would end. But no they (the government) needed to make a new bubble and after 9/11 bingo: Real Estate.

Stewart, in talking with Cramer lambastes the idea of leverage rates of 30 to 1. What a maroon!! Leverage rates of 30 to 1 pale in comparison to the leverage rates of the stock market during these periods. But everyone was just elated at the free money. Where was Stewart during this time? Hey Jon, you’re a little late to the party. I reiterate: he's disgusting.

Furthermore, listen to the full interview of Cramer on the TheStreet. He is simply talking about the actions of Hedge funds. Yes he used to run a hedge fund. Like I said earlier, I am not here to defend anyone in as much as full exoneration. But he also did not deserve to have Jon Stewart present his views so out of context. But then again Jon Stewart is just a comedy show. He is just a clown and those that follow him ad nausea are simply clowns in training.

I follow stocks. A wink’s as good as a nod to a blind man and as such I know, have known that hedge funds are manipulators of stocks. So is the government It is really pretty fair of Cramer to document the underpinnings of the market. Do I agree with it? Whatever.

How about the head of our governments financial committee Barney Franks, another criminal, going on National TV last summer / early fall expounding that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are financially sound and viable. How'd that work out? Where is Jon Stewart, the Democratic Party supporter on that one? What a gay criminal is irreproachable in this crazy society. I stand by my statement and could drive on and on about the failing of Jon Stewart.

America put your petty politics aside and take a look in the mirror with the likes of Jon Stewart and be proud that you’re in the clown party. Paper hats and stupid looking noses anyone?

** I thin we need Bush back...... **

I think you need to get your head examined.
Even Cramer Under Fire got it.
The games, the games these people played,
do you get it?
The games people played with other people's money
under the auspices of "expertise" were utterly
immoral. Do you get that? This economy did not fall off a cliff,
it was kicked off the cliff by Bush & Cronies Inc who gave
themselves tax breaks while waging an expensive and
immoral war. Do you get it? Of course not.

I think the comedian Bill Maher solution to the what should we do with
bank CEO's who caused this mess is better
WALL STREETS OPENING BELL SHOULD BE WRUNG WITH
2 OF THEM WITH HANGMAN NOOSES AROUND THEIR
NECKS & THEIR BALLS IN THEIR MOUTHS
Call it the Chia solution

"...the story was astronomically complex, and changed quickly...
Neither could an army of highly trained and responsible financial reporters."

Here is the story -- housing prices climb astronomically, while incomes do not.
Meanwhile consumer debt and consumption increase while savings go negative.

This is not astronomically complex and it developed over many years. Anyone who dug into the work of mortgage brokers and appraisers could see how illegitimate many of these loans were.
What was more complex were the risk models for securitized products, but here, there was too little reporting of those going against
the grain to ask the tough questions. In fact one simple question -- what happens when housing prices fall? -- appears to have been outside the purview of financial journalism.

Face up, most financial reporters are looking to promote their careers by sucking up to big finance, not
by becoming Whistleblower #1 and risking exclusion from C-level offices. Even Meredith Whitney was
marginalized time and again, until everything she said turned out to be true.
So this could have been reported, but it was not. And in not thinking about why that is, you are still in CYA mode for your profession, instead
of taking a hard look at the facts, and coming up with serious lessons learned.

Keep trying, you may still get there.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/03/13/cramer/

Your brilliant job in a difficult endeavor isn't so great.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/03/13/cramer/

Your brilliant job in a difficult endeavor isn't so great.

This shows why you're clueless.

"The reporters at the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times - and my paper, too - do a magnificent job in this difficult endeavor day after day."

I know you want to make friends and keep friends in your industry, but the country doesn't need more cheerleaders who willfully look past the failings of their own industries.

Instead, why not just try to do better?

I was a big fan f stewart before this cramer interview and i am pretty sure i am done.
while i feel he is bright and funny at times, this interview was weak. stewart lulled cramer into believing they were ok with their previous comments and then went on the attack to stear the conversation to make him look bad. i wish cramer would have challenged him on the details of how the economy & market works to save a little face..many people were and are wrong here and to put cramers face on it shows how little stewart knows. you want to say your f#$@%ing mad , say it to the right person. he does have the power to get to tose people if he wanted to. this is a bushleague interview. and i would be surprised if any stewart supporters / cramer haters would at least agree to that

Great post, Duncan!! Everyone read Duncan's post!

You asked the question how reporters can miss such important stories. If it is a matter of complexity, than you are in the wrong business. If you cannot understand complexity in a story and then explain it so that your readers can understand it, then you need to find a different profession.

As a former technical consultant whose job was often to interface with the media, it is my opinion that the media misses stories because reporters don't do the tough spade work to get the stories. It is not that the story was missed because it was unknown to the people in the trenches, it was because the reporters did not develop the needed skills and contacts to ferret out the story before it exploded in the headlines. Thus, reporters and newspapers have become after the fact obituary writers rather than reporters who find out things in their community that need fixing and taking the lead in getting it done.

For example, while working in Minnesota I was attending a meeting of environmental lawyers and consultants who were crowing about how they manipulated the government regulators. How did they do it? Well, they wrote news releases that made it easy for the newspapers to pick up a story, do very little work to edit into news copy, and then it was published. Another day I met with persons at the State's environmental protection agency. I asked them about this and they said that they did the exact same thing! Both sides manipulating the press for their own ends because the reporters were too lazy to go out and get the complete story.

In another case, this one in Wisconsin, the Republican administration was being beaten by the environmental groups in the public information war and, as a result, in the Legislature. How did they do it? They developed relationships with the technical staffers and had dead on intel on each and every anti-environmental action that was being contemplated by the Republican administration. In this case, they knew what was coming because they went to the right people and asked the right questions.

In other words, if reporters want access to the top people in any given organization, they will not want to anger them and have the access cut off. However, the top people don't do the work in the organization, it is the staffers. If you want to get the full story, not the spun story, go to the staffers. Otherwise, you are wasting all our time. That is how you don't miss stories.

Jon Stewart did a magnificient job, and "Nick's" post that you responded to was exactly right. People posting here who are trashing Stewart are dismissing him as comic or . . . whatever, less than a real journalist. Well, he did an Edward R. Murrow job on the business press last night and everybody outside of the Wall Street world gets it. The posts on HuffPost and elsewhere are overwhelming, and for good reason. What use is journalism if it's not going to speak truth to power? Stewart's passion on this is real. He's informed, lucid, and hard hitting. It's serious journalism and we need much much more it, which was his point last night.

John Stewart is attacking a complacent and compliant news media. It's been his central thesis for years. 'saying that he is simply a "snake oil sales man" and therefore has no real responsibility.' is perfectly acceptable. He's not trying to be a reporter, and it doesn't matter what he knows about finance.

It's about journalists not doing their jobs. He's not there to do it for them, and he never claimed to be. He's there to shame them into doing it themselves, properly.

David,

Maybe if you and other economic pundits listened to Peter Schiff back in 2007, instead of laughing at him, they may have had a clue. He was the only one predicting the subprime market's bubble was about to burst. Did anyone ever consider that he might be right??

i am not a cramer fan, but your domination of the interview and all you monday morning quaterbacking reduced your standings in my opinion and the domination of the interview {90%] of the time. also you played to your audience for better ratings just as cnbc does with their financial program and your complaint against them.

I appreciate your thoughtful take on this, but I think you are wrong to equate the thoughtful and dedicated journalists at the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Newsday with cable television reporting. To save money cable news abandoned real reporting a long time ago choosing instead to fill the airwaves with guests and pundits offering their "take on the news." And while a few interviewers (mostly the older generation) still seem to care about getting their guests to say something of value, others challenge their guests only for shock and entertainment value, while most rarely seem to listen to what guests say as they read canned questions off a teleprompter. That's not news. Part of the reason Jon Stewart's interviews are so compelling is that he actually seems to know what he is talking about. He provides context. He listens to his guests, asks follow-up questions and calls them on their BS when they give it. Where else on television does one find that anymore?

jon stewart has done something that the press has not done and SHOULD do: ask why. before the iraq war no major newspaper did that. going after cramer is legitimate, he lied on CNBC in the late 90s for his own benefit (he was a guest and talked down WAVO while he had a large short position and puts). CNBC had to issue an apology once this came to light a few days later. Then CNBC (to their credit) started having guests answer 'full disclosure' questions which are now part of the interview.

why CNBC brought cramer on (and kudlow) is bizzare. it takes away their credibility. if bloomberg tv was more prevalent it would take away marketshare. foxnews' finance show i wont even watch (an entire news station that not only did not ask why regarding the iraq war, they were/are sponsors of the war).

I think CNBC has done a great job of getting their staff to comment here.

Now for a real person ---

Has it escaped everyone's notice that Jim Cramer admitted to committing FRAUD? On tape? Amongst the many things he said on that two-bit video -- "You know, a lot of times when I was short and I was positioned short, meaning I needed it down, I would create a level of activity beforehand that could drive the futures". He said what he said because "I'd never say this if I were on TV..." !

This is NOT someone who should be in a position of trust. I wouldn't want him teaching my kids, I wouldn't want him handling my finances and I sure as hell don't think he should be positioned as an expert on anything on any network.

I DO think he ought to be in jail and his hypocrisy at acting like the defender of the little guy was and is nauseating.

That he appeared on the show because he knew that Jon Stewart's people had unearthed that tape and his network demanded it was obvious.

Jon did an admirable job -- I admire him for his self-restraint. He didn't aim at Jim Cramer initially. Cramer knew that damning video existed. Despite that, he chose to react in self-righteous anger to Jon Stewart's condemnation of CNBC for deriding people who lost their homes and missing the scoop of the century. What a bizarre thing to do.

I can appreciate the current financial crisis was complex and very few could have seen how and when it went down.

I don't appreciate op-ed and cronyism in journalism and I certainly think that when discussing something as vital as people's financial futures -- you go to several sources and do your homework.

Applause to Jon Stewart and his staff.

Jim Cramer, you should be in jail.

Mr. Gay, you are completely and totally wrong about this one. This situation did not come out of nowhere. There had been concern about the stability of subprime mortages over a year before banks like Bear Sterns and Lehman Brothers collapsed. I have friends working in the lower levels of investment banks who were telling me how a beating was about to take place. Don't tell me that in 1+ years time there were no journalists with the intelligence and the savy to understand subprime loans. It seemed as if as soon as the bottom fell out of the financial market, news reporters were coming out of the woodwork to tell us how subprime mortgages were garbage, how there had been insurances sold on these loans that were equally garbage, and how the whole house of cards could be simply explained. Where were all these people before the bottom fell out? People like Cramer, if they were truly experts, should have seen this coming and not encouraged investments in these companies.

Let me make an analogy for you. I'm a medical student, and in one year, I'll be a doctor. Imagine if a patient comes in to see me in my office and asks me if he has lung cancer. I don't examine the patient, don't order any tests, show no clear cut advanced reasoning or logic, and tell the patient that NO, he is going to have a long and healthy life. Then three to four weeks later the patient drops dead from lung cancer. Would I be sued for malpractice? Of course. And I would deserve it. Point being that Jim Cramer did not do his due diligence before making stock recommendations that wound up being horrendously wrong. His expert "recommendations" were completely off base. But thus far, he has faced no reprecussions. But what can I expect. This is the country where a president presents false intelligence as justification for a $600 billion war that has killed over 4,000 American troops and who knows how many Iraqis. And he's not held to task for it. But oh no, sue your doctor. Sue the peanut butter that gave you salmonella. Sue the company that made a product that you misused and hurt yourself with. Sue everyone except for the PEOPLE WHO FAIL YOU THE WORST!

Kudos to Stewart for finally standing up and calling this guy for what he is-- A HACK!

You said:
"And third, reporters DO report what people tell them, and they DO report the facts, to the best of their ability, and they DO draw conclusions from those. The reporters at the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times - and my paper, too - do a magnificent job in this difficult endeavor day after day."

Why is this difficult endeavor???? Reporting the truth? Its kind of like a trucker saying, I like my job, but it’s a lot of driving. THAT IS THE JOB BABY!! The difficulty of draw conclusion from the muck is part of the job isn’t it. To me, it is the only obligation you have, the truth. Isn’t it?

Is it difficult because everyone wants to get the first scoop, to get their stories out, even leaving out crucial detail because of deadline not enough time for research. perhaps that way of thinking should change for certain kinds of stories that needs to come out when the truth does. we don't see enough of that, just rush rush rush. whoever gets to the finish line wins! however you get it out. we all have seen reckless reporting in that vein.

s it difficult because of the intertwined relationship of media companies that is owned by a big corporation and in turn owned by a bigger parent company?

Media companies protect their own interest ALL the time, just look who does not have any coverage of the Jon Stewart/Jim Cramer interview today, NBC family - its no where to be found. Cramer was a no show at Morning Joe - MSNBC (he was schedule), No mention of any of it on the Today Show where Jim Cramer showed up this week. No mention on MSNBC, and was mentioned twice in CNBC, and not by choice. Like it or not Jon Stewart was part of news today, NBC is turning away like it didn't happen, what else gets this kind of treatment.

time and time again, we hear reporters asleep (Iraq war, WMD, Intelligence, abu gharib - the New Yorker Magazine broke the story, not a newspaper or a TV media) and missing the story, or just being fed the story all in the name of access, access to the high profiled ceo/politicians/entertainers/etc. All of news has turned into talking head. In able to get access to these people they need to have friendly relationships with subject/PR firm of subject/company of the subject. In order to deem friendly you have to write friendly stories and play nice.

Oh, but the media is critical of each other of course. How many times have you seen incompetent exposed and you see every media outlet, print and TV all talk about it, oh how can this be? Have we gone too far? I have read a NY newspaper recently that had an article about Octomom having too much press coverage, then the next page, 4 stories about her. HELLO! CNN does the same thing, remember Paris Hilton going to jail. They report about her, then after, about the excessive coverage about her.

It's why i watch the Daily Show, they all show the same BS, i might as well have a good laugh.

Stewart has gone the way of Letterman. Unfortunately, both have decided to change the focus of their "comedy" in recent year and alienated a whole lot of people who liked them when they were satisfied with incredibly witty humor that covered the full range of societal and political landscape. By choosing to take such an obvious stance, their edginess has pushed many of us away...I used to want to hear "what they said last night". Now, I'm wondering who they're attacking tonight with their "satire"/"comedy", "mantra", whatever you want to call it.

The thing that gets me is the way they play the "comedy card" - Don't take us seriously- were just comedians. This double standard apparently gives them immunity to critical review. They can bury their political views and social commentary in a haystack of laughter and influence the masses - viewers who are probably tuning in to the program with a passive mental state (it's just a comedy show, right.) and are more apt to let laughter open the subconscious mental door for the influential thought/commentary. Don't underestimate the power of comedy. They do political and societal "drive-bys" to influence society - They are very smart men who have worked hard for many years and now have the luxury of wielding considerable influential power on those who take it in.

BTW,I have no clue as to the ratings of their shows - if they have maintained, or increased, market share, I would guess that they have had a pretty interesting turnover of viewers in recent years. For every one, like me, that has left, one or more has tuned in.

Stewart's drive-by on Cramer is just another example...Cramer obviously has a specific persona he has developed on his program and is a hit-and-miss stock picker like the rest of us. When I watch him, it is for general market info and entertainment value. If he goes the way of Stewart and Letterman, I'll take him off my radar as well.

So, in my opinion,Stewart needs to get of "Comedy Central" and find a new, edgy..."satirical network" for himself to flourish in...He would probably do just as well in the ratings and be more respected by those of us who believe in the power of the mass media in shaping the views of society.

Are you a professional journalist? What are you using CAPS for? It comes off as chatroom quality at best, not to mention your choice to use the word "screwed." You shouldn't need caps if your words speak loud enough for themselves. Christ, how old are you? 20? Did your dad get you the job?

The author of this article is right. It's not fair to blame Cramer and I don't think Stewart really did. I don't know if it is fair to blame nbc which Stewart did. I guess you could blame the banks. Everyone else is doing it. You could blame government for letting the banks or other monopolies get so big. You can blame the poor for accepting loans though I think that's a little unfair. The media though? It depends. It would seem right because they're claiming credibility and foresight where there is none. Everyone claims those lies. It is annoying but most people can disregard the guy who says he saw this coming since 1984. But if your a news company you have some obligation to be a little credible. Still ego and hype is peanuts compared to bad business or bad government.

I think everyone is just frustrated and our American distrust of everything from government to business to the media is getting the best of us, as it usually does. It's a bad time to pretend you know what you're doing.

Jon Stewart is a such a pathetic douche bag. At $12M+ a year you'd think you'd get more for your money than the predictable crap that spews from this pompous lefty. Now he's taking on Wall Street--this will be good. As Jon's financial IQ is about 75, I'm looking forward to another round from this genius. Gee, maybe he can give me a better investment strategy--like not buying stock in Viacom.

Jon Stewart is a such a pathetic douche bag. At $12M+ a year you'd think you'd get more for your money than the predictable crap that spews from this pompous lefty. Now he's taking on Wall Street--this will be good. As Jon's financial IQ is about 75, I'm looking forward to another round from this genius. Gee, maybe he can give me a better investment strategy--like not buying stock in Viacom.

Jon Stewart is a such a pathetic douche bag. At $12M+ a year you'd think you'd get more for your money than the predictable crap that spews from this pompous lefty. Now he's taking on Wall Street--this will be good. As Jon's financial IQ is about 75, I'm looking forward to another round from this genius. Gee, maybe he can give me a better investment strategy--like not buying stock in Viacom.

Jon Stewart is a such a pathetic douche bag. At $12M+ a year you'd think you'd get more for your money than the predictable crap that spews from this pompous lefty. Now he's taking on Wall Street--this will be good. As Jon's financial IQ is about 75, I'm looking forward to another round from this genius. Gee, maybe he can give me a better investment strategy--like not buying stock in Viacom.

CNBC commentators (carl quintanilla, becky swift, david faber, amost of the morning commentators) do ask tough questions.

example, gm's cfo was asked pointed questions which he answered.

the cnbc guys in the evening (kudlow, cramer) are more for entertainment purposes. anyone who has watched cramer for more than a week would realize this guy is off. he has had a buy on one day and within 2 days its a sell.

-if you made your investment decisions on anyone, without doing your due diligence you are gambling.
-blaming 401k losses on cramer, or cnbc is inaccurate.
-cnbc did not make lending 'cheap' in '05-'07 when heavy leveraging was the norm. they reported both sides, companies doing LBOs and that it is 'crazy'
-how many of your coworkers told you that you were 'a fool' for not getting an ARM? for renting not buying?
-like jon stewart said, its easy to say it was bad now, the entire U.S. population drank the kool-aid

Apologize for multiple posts. Post interface was not functioning correctly.

Apologize for the multiple posts. Interface wasn't working properly--but thanks Newday's for the higher PV's.

Apologize for the multiple posts. Interface wasn't working properly--but thanks Newday's for the higher PV's.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. The point of Stewart's argument is that so called 'journalists' should do their job. It just goes to show that media outlets do not have the best interests of those who give them ratings in mind.

The conversation between Jim cramer and Jon stewart is indifferent and the job they have performed is excellent.

Stewart did apologize for putting Cramer as the face of the guilt for the whole of the CNBC staff, but that was Stewart's point...Cramer can't just be bells and whistles, he has to be a reporter. People watch his show, trust him, listen to his advice everyday, and sure it's fun seeing him scream and run away and squeak a doggy toy, but this was people's futures, jobs, mortgages, 401ks, security, families that they hols in their hands and they blew it. It's time for real reporting and journalism and enough of this crap that Howard Beale got so mad about. These people are paid to do this, and it's ridiculous to sound like the VICTIM about how the CEOs lied to him. Maybe if he didn't worry about putting in a new sound bite that when he pressed a button it would sound like a car honking and actually tried to find out if what they were saying was true or not then maybe some of this could have been diverted, not all, but some. Sure "normal" people might have been able to figure out some of the problems if they studied on it, but what's the point of giving Cramer and co paychecks then? Why give a surgeon a paycheck when I could learn how to remove a spleen on WebMD? I admit I don't understand a lot of finance and economics, but I understand when someone doesn't do their job properly and tries to weasel out of it. This wasn't funny because its not a joke, I agree with that, but I wish people would learn without having to go on the Daily Show and be humiliated into realizing their faults. Because if that's the case, Jon Stewart is going to be busy for a long time....

Boy there are a lot of peeved people on here. CNBC cowards who let Cramer take the fall?, bankers?, out of anything else to talk about Republicans?, fired Brawl St. exec? Guess you can see why they can't take a joke, or the heat.

Another thing you can say about Jon Stewart, he's not only funny - he's deliberately funny, unlike the channels most of the peeved likely watch - Fox News & CNBC - which are merely laughable.

maybe all those reporters missed the bubble because all they did was talk to CEOs (who are paid to promote their companies) and analysts and each other.

There were a number of consumer reports about the risks of alternative mortgages for the borrower - but it never occurred to any of these "business" reporters to look at the people and businesses making these mortgages.

Did any of them anywhere (WSJ, NYT, whatever) ever look at the balance sheets of these banks? Did any of them even try to understand things like CDOs?

No. Their reporting was about as useful as the daily press conference with Gibbs.

How can a debate about the lack of oversight on wall street and the
backdoor manipulation of the stock market be turned into another
Bush bashing session by all of you liberals. Lets not even discuss the
costs of the war because 1. its not relevant to the stewart/cramer
debate. 2. you cannot prove the cost of NOT going to war until the war
is finished(argue with me all you want but you WILL NOT provide empirical
evidence because unless you have some for of time travel available to you
it is not possible right now).

MOVING ON

I am a conservative but I do not know how party lines could blind
the majortiy of the other conservatives opinions on
this back-and-forth who posted on here. Stewart simply
showed Jim Cramer's behavior in his OWN HOUSE and exposed the person he is.
Cramer taped everything Stewart showed on there for HIS website.
There is no way of denying how morally reprehnsible his views are.
Stewart was totally respectful in his candor and was only guilty of
showing his passion, anger, and frustration for the situation that Cramer
and his mutant breed of opportunists have put this country in. Its not about Bush.
Its simply that our government has no real procedures in place to reign
in these greedy market whoremongers.

Also, Obama is doing nothing to change this ^ problem. In fact, after
all of his preaching and campaign rhetoric about change its simply
more of the same. No willingness to go against his party even when
they are completely negating the entire pedestal he won the election
on.

In summation:
I don't agree with most of Stewart's views but he was right on this time.
He also used almost no humor during the interview so the people who
said he used comedy to make Cramer look bad... Please forget your party
for a minute and see this for what it is. An utter asshole from the clan
of greedy assholes who got us here, and a layman(Stewarts words)
he is pissed off that we have all been screwed by said assholes.

How can a debate about the lack of oversight on wall street and the
backdoor manipulation of the stock market be turned into another
Bush bashing session by all of you liberals. Lets not even discuss the
costs of the war because 1. its not relevant to the stewart/cramer
debate. 2. you cannot prove the cost of NOT going to war until the war
is finished(argue with me all you want but you WILL NOT provide empirical
evidence because unless you have some for of time travel available to you
it is not possible right now).

MOVING ON

I am a conservative but I do not know how party lines could blind
the majortiy of the other conservatives opinions on
this back-and-forth who posted on here. Stewart simply
showed Jim Cramer's behavior in his OWN HOUSE and exposed the person he is.
Cramer taped everything Stewart showed on there for HIS website.
There is no way of denying how morally reprehnsible his views are.
Stewart was totally respectful in his candor and was only guilty of
showing his passion, anger, and frustration for the situation that Cramer
and his mutant breed of opportunists have put this country in. Its not about Bush.
Its simply that our government has no real procedures in place to reign
in these greedy market whoremongers.

Also, Obama is doing nothing to change this ^ problem. In fact, after
all of his preaching and campaign rhetoric about change its simply
more of the same. No willingness to go against his party even when
they are completely negating the entire pedestal he won the election
on.

In summation:
I don't agree with most of Stewart's views but he was right on this time.
He also used almost no humor during the interview so the people who
said he used comedy to make Cramer look bad... Please forget your party
for a minute and see this for what it is. An utter asshole from the clan
of greedy assholes who got us here, and a layman(Stewarts words)
he is pissed off that we have all been screwed by said assholes.

Stewart expressed the deep insult felt by countless people who hoped for better and trusted other people. He even said this is not about Cramer. But, Cramer is part of what it is about.
The word "journalist" is thrown around pretty freely these days. I even heard Sean Hannity call himself a journalist. Alice in wonderland.
There was a time when using that title required work and professionalism, as pointed out above in this thread. I think that Woodward and Bernstein, in spite of their tremendously valuable work on Watergate, spawned a resulting rush to be cool and heroic as journalists. Roger Miller once said something like "it's fun being a songwriter, except every once in a while you have to write a song".
Romanticising people and professions and situations can be a recipe for ultimate disappointment and bigger trouble as well. I wanna be a cool journalist, like the pretty people on my TV, I wanna be a rich CEO. I wanna be a movie star.
I have heard these things from young people who ought to have been guided to think and say "I want to learn how to write, I want to learn about business, I want to act. Buyt this is the work part and work is not cool, Coolest of all is to "have", not to "do". Man, what a soulless society this is becoming.
I think the Stewart Cramer interview was a beautiful thing. Every word out of Stewart's mouth needed to be said. I have not been a follower of either.I don't care if Stewart is a comedian, "TV star", or a journalist - he called BS by its name, and that is a necessary, valuable thing.

I've been poking about different online articles and their comment sections about all this, and have noted a few things: the Obama bashers are even more scarily disconnected than first thought; good, smart and serious debates/discussion apparently require more intelligence to follow than what most conservatives in general can muster; Jim Cramer is actually unnervingly more typical of the mindset of financial "reporters" than not; and that general mainstream journalists seem to find it awkward writing about a comedian who does part-time journalism better -- a LOT better -- than they do.

Well, I think that CNBC has a responsibility to be BALANCED and tell investigate possibilities and report to us? Let's take George Soros for instane. I HATE this guy, but there was an interview back in 2006 that Maria Bartiromo conducted on her show in which Soros predicted that the housing market was going to take a sharp turn. here is the link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFD_3mZBxD8 Now, like him or hate him Soros is a profound business leader and if someone of THAT stature makes a bold statement such as this, why not do some homework on his comments instead of being just a pretty face asking questions on TV. They missed this horribly.
The media controls us. Everything is BAD news and the interesting juxtaposition is that everyone cries for 'confidence' and the economy will recover once people gain confidence. Well, how in the world do people get confident if the messages that are stuffed in our faces are all negative. Take for instance ONE tiny thing... unemployment. All you hear about is that there is upwards of 9% of the people unemployed in this country... 9%. Yes, it is a bad number... but you NEVER hear how many people ARE actually working do you? Almost 145,000,000 people are employed in this country... 145,000,000.... why don't you ever hear that number? Because the media wants to create fear.
They want you to turn into their channel because its is food for your hunger to get information. The media will RUIN this country. Will RUIN it... and it has already started. It is not so much the on air talent, but the people behind the cameras that control what we see, and how we think about it. True or not, what would happen if we turn on the TV on Monday morning and reporters are telling us that the market will crash today because of some report out of somewhere. Do you beleive them? Of course you do. People would run to banks, call their brokers and the whole fear cycle continues. You see, it is not what the media tells us....it is that we BELEIVE them right away because we don't have any
other alternative. It is on TV or in the paper it MUST be true. People, remember this, there is NO subtitute for first hand experience. CNBC is a financial liability...too many 'experts' and too many 'debates'. They are crafting a message of confusion on all of their shows because they always have guests that have a conflicting opinion. ALWAYS. Bull market or Bear market.. how can any viewer properly decipher what is real and what is not. This country would be a lot better off with just our 3 TV channels. I would LOVE to see the media outlets go bankrupt and then they can go find a real career. If the message was more positive coming out of the portal, we would all be living more confident lives.

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.

I've been reading up on reactions to the Stewart/Cramer interview and have noticed something that troubles me.

A lot of people seem to have missed the point. This interview was never about Cramer. Stewart said it: "This song ain't about you." I suspect that Stewart would have made exactly the same points to Santelli, had Santelli not canceled his appearance on TDS a few days ago. Stewart just needed a foil to represent CNBC and other news networks. It hardly mattered who it was.

I was disappointed only that Cramer was not up to the task of representing his network. He probably had no idea what he was getting in to with that interview. It seems pretty clear to me that Cramer thought this was all about him, while Stewart saw Cramer as the symptom, not the disease. Stewart even seemed to understand that Cramer was a crappy foil when he apologized to him for making him the face of this... whatever you want to call it.

I commend Stewart for saying things that needed to be said, for articulating feelings of betrayal many of us feel but are not eloquent enough to put into words, and for calling Cramer on his bullshit.

I've also noticed a number of bloggers here and elsewhere, tying presidential politics to the interview. This isn't about Bush or Obama. Cramer made the same mistake early in the interview and Stewart corrected him, saying this wasn't about politics. Stewart targeted the news networks and their business model. He targeted those journalists who purport to deliver the truth to their viewers but in reality don't even try to. This is a complaint that Stewart has had for years (going back to his Crossfire appearance and his interview/book promo with Charlie Rose).

I don't think Stewart will be as tough on the Obama administration as he was on Bush's because, being pretty liberal, he would find less to object to. That doesn't mean TDS is dead, though (or that he won't find anything to object to). I really, really hope this interview marks a resurgence of Stewart's old pet project: taking down the 24-hour news networks. It's a worthy goal and I hope Viacom/MTV doesn't cancel him before he can at least dent their armor.

Easy to read and Enjoy, Keep smiling.

I found weblogs.newsday.com very informative. The article is professionally written and I feel like the author knows the subject very well. weblogs.newsday.com keep it that way.

Badly need your help. U know guys I just want to say hello :) Keep in touch ;). Help me! Help to find sites on the: Bachelor degree requirements. I found only this - bachelor university degree. In fact, there is often more one on one attention with an online bachelor degree program because each student can regularly communicate directly with the professor by. Online bachelor degree education an investment in your future. With love :-(, Jelani from Kenya.