NightOfJoy Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 This is the point. Journalists have gotten so cozy with their sources that they have forgotten why they have sources in the first place. Rather than use the sources to get information, which leads through investigation to other information, they just take what their sources say and pass it on as fact. Why? They don't want to insult, and therefore lose, their sources. After all, they rationalize, if I don't pass this source's story on, someone else will. But the whole point of journalism is to get at the real facts and tell the world what those facts are. Too many journalists seem to have forgotten this. Who, what, when, where, why. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
EL the Famous Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 ...but they had no business using the Mad Money program as an investment tool in the first place. sole investment tool, sure. that said, again, it doesn't absolve him giving shitty advice/guidance on his show no matter what auspices you want to put it under. you cannot say it's NOT part of the problem. this isn't really a liberal/conservative argument, dude. bad/irresponsible financial guidance/reporting/whatever...is bad/irresponsible financial guidance/reporting/whatever. yeah? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
OOO Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 The problem being that, especially on TV, facts don't sell as well as entertainment. Which is why you get a mixture of the two. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Moss Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 That interview just seemed like the most honest thing I have heard in such a sea of BS about the whole Crisis. And it was on Comedy Central. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Not any chance, of course we all know it was no surprise that this interview would be welcomed warmly here. Given that this recession is global, and do in large part to developments here, the video would be well received pretty much anywhere at the moment, regardless of geography or the viewer Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mrs. Peel Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 this isn't really a liberal/conservative argument, dude. bad/irresponsible financial guidance/reporting/whatever...is bad/irresponsible financial guidance/reporting/whatever. yeah? If it were, no one would know who to side with after Cramer said he voted for Obama. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
EL the Famous Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 truth. even above that, i'm not quite a completely liberal, more centered and i love my money...a lot...and still think at worse case, someone w/ a recent track record like cramer shouldn't have a show, responsible or not. or, at least, shouldn't be billed as any sort of an expert...just a wacky bald guy who may or may not have a grabber on air while giving shitty financial advice. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mpolak21 Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 I have only seen the uncut version of this on the website, was the edited version more intense? I felt Stewart certainly took him to task, but I felt he showed a lot more restraint than he has in the past with asshats like Chris Matthews and when he went on Crossfire. The conversation always seemed pretty civil, and Cramer, perhaps to his credit, seemed to just take most of it without fighting back, but he never really admitted he did anything wrong. --Mike Quote Link to post Share on other sites
John Smith Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 I think Stewart's point was that Cramer isn't one of those pop advisors, in the sense that he really knows better. Oprah probably believes the crap that she says, and it's ridiculous that people listen to her as an expert on anything other than marketing, but that's what they get for listening to pop gurus. Same for Suze Orman. Cramer knows a lot about how the market works, and he knows a lot about the shenanigans that these companies have been pulling, but he doesn't pass his knowledge on to his viewers. He relies on gimmicks and shtick instead to draw in viewers but then doesn't educate them because that would be boring. He avoids difficult topics and trusts his "sources" too blindly, to the detriment of his viewers. What i am referring to I guess is the one size fits all answers given out by these people, and the fact that so many in the public would rather tune into Cramer than pick up the WSJ. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mrs. Peel Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 I'm sure that, given the way CNBC presents itself, a lot of people think they are a reliable news source, and an alternative to the WSJ. They certainly don't tell people they're a bunch of windbags who will probably be wrong half the time. I know I will not be reading a WSJ any time soon, sorry. I can't comprehend financial columns, and sometimes seeing someone explaining things to me on TV is a lot easier to understand. I don't watch any of these shows except an occasional Suze Orman episode, so I don't know how all of the CNBC shows work, but I will say that having Orman spell things out for me makes me understand the way things work a lot better. I imagine that a lot of Cramer viewers are like me, and need to have some things spelled out in plain English. Should they blindly follow whatever he says to do? No. But I can certainly understand how plenty of people would take his advice as a "leading financial expert". And that's what Stewart was trying to say. It's not a fucking game. People LISTEN to you. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Moss Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 I'm sure that, given the way CNBC presents itself, a lot of people think they are a reliable news source, and an alternative to the WSJ. They certainly don't tell people they're a bunch of windbags who will probably be wrong half the time. I know I will not be reading a WSJ any time soon, sorry. I can't comprehend financial columns, and sometimes seeing someone explaining things to me on TV is a lot easier to understand. I don't watch any of these shows except an occasional Suze Orman episode, so I don't know how all of the CNBC shows work, but I will say that having Orman spell things out for me makes me understand the way things work a lot better. I imagine that a lot of Cramer viewers are like me, and need to have some things spelled out in plain English. Should they blindly follow whatever he says to do? No. But I can certainly understand how plenty of people would take his advice as a "leading financial expert". And that's what Stewart was trying to say. It's not a fucking game. People LISTEN to you. I agree and I hate the argument that "those stupid people deserve what they got". There are busy working people that don't have time or don't want to spend their free time reading the WSJ. They assume someone like Cramer has done some reasearch and is not out to lose them money. It's not that they were following him like sheep but there was a sense of trust that he knew more than them and might be a good source of info. Naive yes, but not all people are as jaded and cynical as some of us. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
John Smith Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Ebven if I did listen to him I would verify with other sources or at the very least explore other options. I do this with the broker I have right now. I never ever take anythign he says at face value because ultimately he is workign for commissions, not me. So if I don't read and educate myself it woudl be very easy to fall into the bad advice trap. True story. Not quite 2 years ago a gentleman came into our office. He had a whole list of financial and tax problems that needed immediate addressing, but one stood out for its absurdity. The guy had a financial advisor who talked him into buying hog futures, the advisor never told him anything about selling the futures. He moved on to a new broker. Contracts generally are not long term so this guy was moving around fairly quickly and lost track of his hog futures. The contract date came and went without the contract being sold and he ended up owning real hogs. All from taking advice without knowing what he was taking advice for. These pop advisors can lead people doown the same stupid path. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Winston Legthigh Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 I agree and I hate the argument that "those stupid people deserve what they got". There are busy working people that don't have time or don't want to spend their free time reading the WSJ. They assume someone like Cramer has done some reasearch and is not out to lose them money. It's not that they were following him like sheep but there was a sense of trust that he knew more than them and might be a good source of info. Naive yes, but not all people are as jaded and cynical as some of us.Not trusting Cramer isn't about being cynical or jaded. It's realizing that he has no idea of your financial situation, your financial goals, your risk tolerance, your investment-savvy, etc. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 On the one hand, I feel bad for Cramer, as he seems a little ambushed here, but on the other hand, fuck it. It's fucking ridiculous that Jon Stewart has to be the one to call this guy out on the shit him and his network has been throwing out over the last year. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
EL the Famous Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 On the one hand, I feel bad for Cramer, as he seems a little ambushed here... have you been watching the DS and/or news the past week? he was hardly ambushed. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 I got nothin. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jff Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 he ended up owning real hogs. I know a lot of people who would eagerly trade their stock portfolio for a bunch of hogs these days. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
John Smith Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 On the one hand, I feel bad for Cramer, as he seems a little ambushed here, but on the other hand, fuck it. It's fucking ridiculous that Jon Stewart has to be the one to call this guy out on the shit him and his network has been throwing out over the last year. No ambush these guys have been going back and forth for a week or two already. Not a gotcha session either because Cramer knew where Stewart was going to go. I know a lot of people who would eagerly trade their stock portfolio for a bunch of hogs these days. Mmmm bacon. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 A guy on another board I frequent had this response, which has been a better rebuttal than most of what I've seen here. Not saying I agree with him at all (not that I disagree, I think he just misses the point), but I think it's as good a response as any I've seen: "Wow, calling out a television network. Ballsy and a tremendous public service. Why not go after the actual people doing this if they feel they are doing investigative reporting? Cramer is an easy target and one that seems done out convenience and ultimately does nothing. Cramer is a 'bad guy' apparently, so what? Ultimately frivolous. I love how passionate Stewart is about this and acts like some deliverer of human rights and an epic whistleblower. So Jim Cramer and CNBC are the reason for the rescession? That is what I take away from all this. I also don't get why it is 'evil' to use the stock market for monetary gain. There is a big damn defense between Madoff and someone strategically playing the 'game' of the market. CNBC needs to be a watchdog but Stewart's own show can do whatever the fuck they want and no one needs to hold them to any standard even though they are emerging as a leader for young people's news? The network they are on automatically absolves them of this too? Seems insanely hypocritical. 'Glad' Stewart found an easy sacrificial lamb to get his point and self over." Quote Link to post Share on other sites
fatheadfred Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Stewart is comedy w/ a side of watchdog while CNBC is promoted as an actual news station. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 I think it's a bit bullshit that he gets to pass off everything he does as Comedy and is devoid from criticism because of that. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
fatheadfred Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 I think it's a bit bullshit that he gets to pass off everything he does as Comedy and is devoid from criticism because of that. You can say he isn't funny. Just like you can say Cramer didn't push for knowledge from his guests. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
OOO Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 I think this quote from Watchmen makes sense here. Once you figure out what a joke everything is, being the Comedian's the only thing that makes sense Quote Link to post Share on other sites
fatheadfred Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 and Will Rogers... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
EL the Famous Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 I think it's a bit bullshit that he gets to pass off everything he does as Comedy and is devoid from criticism because of that. as much as I freaking love him and the daily show...you have a solid point. it actually makes me mad sometimes when they do a legitimately solid piece of news/commentary and then two seonds late 'aww shucks, we're JUST a comedy show'. they aren't JUST a comedy show, they don't try to be JUST a comedy show...but won't fess up to either. most likely, to do so would leave them open for the same accountability they pick people apart for lacking. as far as that quote from that other guy, he's still kind of missing the point...they never said Jim Cramer and CNBC are the reason for the rescession, but that they are part of the problem. throw in that picking on the absurdity of what passes for news on supposedly legitimate news networks is a pretty regular bit and, to be fair, the amount of young people going to the DS for their news versus people going to CNBC for legitimate finanical news is kind of apples to watermelons. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.