Thoughts on Jim Cramer vs. Jon Stewart

I find Stewart's line of attack really distasteful. What started this feud was Cramer's rant against Obama's recent economic policies. Stewart's response was...what, showing that Cramer is really bad at picking stocks? The fact that Cramer made some bad picks is irrelevant to what he said about the administration. If you want to draw some connection between his Bear Stearns advice and his competency to give a general opinion on the economy, fine, that still wouldn't address the substance of his arguments and that's not what's being done here. It's simply, "Hey, this clown was wrong on Bear Stearns!" It's like the Republicans saying "Oh, Obama thinks Bush was wrong on Iraq? Hey, look over here at Reverend Wright!"

The fact that this is being discussed more accurately shows the main point and problem here: In many ways, a show that runs 22 minutes 4 days/week is making more astute statements than much of the rest of television. They are on COMEDY CENTRAL. The Daily Show (from what I've watched) has never claimed to have the answers - In their words they are 'turd miners'. Why in the world should CNBC or others care what a comedian says? Probably because the scripted show makes legitimate and thoughtful statements rather than stream of consciousness exclamations and the unsightly mixxing of entertainment and news the shows they rankle make.

Cramer said on "Early Joe" yesterday that he DOES NOT read any emails sent to him.....yet CNBC has a comment trailer that says "email Cramer...he reads them all".......seems like someone is lying here.

I agree with Jeff, why does it take Jon Stewart/Daily Show for us to finally expose another media outlet as incompetent? Again? Why is he our only voice of reason? I love him, but please give him a little help, with so much incompetence i am afraid him and his staff are not getting enough sleep. Maybe another voice of reason But haven't we had this discussion before, with another daily show posse, Stephen Colbert when he was invited to the White House Press correspondent dinner? He said what the press didn't/couldn't say the last 4 years, to Bush's face no less. And before that it was Jon Stewart Cross Fire CNN Tucker Carlson fight. To point out that these pundits/reporters on television are nothing but being spinned by Washington and are basically talking heads for whoever they are talking to. Why does it take comedian to show us how screwed up our media/government is? shouldn't that really be the job of the media and the government? instead of lying to us or sugar coat it? Cramer is just a drop in the ocean of the muck that is in our media right now. there are so many turds out there for Jon stewart to pick its embarassing to the media, i hope. but they keep defending it on TV instead of trying to do better. Jon stewart is not the first to criticize CNBC, Howard Kurtz from Wash Post wrote an extensive blog last year during the meltdown about it and basically made the same point without being funny. But that absolutely got no attention because long form journalism that no one pays attention to anymore, only stories with a twisted angle ever gets played. I for one is glad Jon Stewart and his guys are turd mining, at least someone is.

To anyone posting to defend what it is Cramer himself actually does on his program: You're quite clearly missing the point. Stewart essentially used Cramer as a human sacrifice to be the symbolic stand-in not only for CNBC, but, far larger, to frame his attack on the 'mysterious,' shadow world practices of many (most?) of the Wall Street fraud gang, who exploit their investors, their clients and the country's financial capital as a whole in order to turn paper money into theoretical money and turn a healthy capitalist economy into a broken, plunging, unforgiving creditor; coming after its debtors, and eating the poorest and most vulnerable first. "The losers" as Santelli called them. I'd have preferred Santelli to be the one to have to sit their and be crucified for the Wall Street defrauders' sins, but Cramer, as oddly vulnerable and almost likable as he - in rare, uncomfortable circumstances - can seem. At times, I really did feel for Cramer having to be eviscerated for all this, to serve Stewart's larger point, but a quick reminder of the succession of clips Stewart showed at the beginning of the interview did a great deal to nullify that. Let;s see how Scarborough spins this. No longer can he say Stewart's just some mindless meanie joke teller who is making some big cause out of Cramer's simple human error of making a few poor predictions. Stewart made it very very clear, this was about much bigger fish; about much more than that. In my opinion, Stewart's been a true genius now for years; today's great satirist, the voice of the clear, dispassionate judge, armed with the video of your hypocrisies and your contradictions and, hence, your lack of credibility. But tonight, he even found a new voice. Scar' and the cable news crew have had no reason to fear anything like this: Even Jon Stewart has pulled back, reserved his most stinging bite when a guest sits across the table from him. He seems a bit afraid of Bill O'Rielly, and others he seems to have (a bit too much?) sympathy for when staring into their eyes, and he lets them mostly off the hook. Tonight, he called bullshit on himself and on all the talk shows tradition of scolding someone from afar, then sitting across from them and killing them with kindness. This is clearly what Cramer expected, and who could blame him. But again, Stewart wasn't even seeing Cramer there as he dropped each blow on him. He saw the epic level of greed that has destroyed the American tendency to avert their accusing eyes. Hopefully this helps destroy that greed before it destroys more lives. Probably unfairly (at least on some level), he may have just destroyed Cramer's career.

Te difference between CNBC (Cramer) and other news outlets is that other outlets deal with current news events, where as CNBC with stock market and economics deals with future and future expectations Its like saying other outlets should have predicted 9/11 coming ... Everyone making and listening to financial news should know folks there are just making a prediction and one can never be sure ... Everyone has to do their own homework before putting their own money ...

One of my grandpas was a Nebraska farm boy who worked his way through Yale to become an economics professor. Over and over he said, "People go into the stock market with no idea what they're buying. So don't buy a single stock unless you can tell me in a sentence or two why." This was years before the Internet and 24/7 financial news. My goddess, have we as a nation become that ridiculous about our hard-earned money? I'm as trusting (or naive) as the next person, but I contend that anyone who bases a personal portfolio on the recommendations of a guy on TV yelling at the top of his lungs probably deserves to lose a little in order to learn an object lesson. The barker at the carnival selling snake oil, INDEED.

The fact that these stock market analysts can even get an audience proves the main point which is that the average person is so greedy and hungry for more goodies than they need or can afford, they will do anything including believe a stupid rodeo clown who acts like a carnival barker. I only know this after seeing him on Jon Stewart's show after the controversy and I thought he seemed drunk and unintelligible. I can barely believe anyone would trust him for financial advice or anyone else as far as that goes. If those "esperts" were really experts, they'd be rich from their own investments right? The fact is that its money that makes money and for those with none it takes hard work to just get by - let alone throw it at a system that will swallow it in a New York minute and not make a dimple in the scheme of things. To do that on some fool's advice is sillier than getting caught in the money drop con game. The whole media set up is just a sponser sponsored con game to pry money from the fingers of the brain dead.

JS really took John Cramer to task and rightfully so. Unfortunately, so much of corporate America, especially in the financial sector, has become a giant money grab by unethical executives financed off the backs of working America’s pensions and 401k’s. Financial reporting must begin to be more honest and frankly there are lots more executives who should end up in jail. On the other hand, one shouldn’t go too far with this and suggest that “money = work” and that anyone who makes money with intelligently leveraged investments is somehow dishonest. If people only made money through working and not through taking business risks then no entrepreneurs would exist and our economy would be a tiny fraction of what it is today. Yes, manipulating the markets in your advantage using your special status as a financial reporter is indeed highly unethical as is any situation where executives risk the financial health of a century-old corporation on absurdly risky derivative bets or through highly risky short term business maneuvers. And yes, work and contribution to society are important. But investments where risk is INTELLIGENTLY and CONSERVATIVELY matched against reward, especially when you are risking your own money and not someone else’s, is a perfectly valid, ethical, and intelligent way to acquire wealth. In fact this is how most wealth is actually acquired. If one never used any leverage in investments, then the real estate market wouldn’t exist, the futures market wouldn’t exist, and the FOREX market wouldn’t exist. So let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater. There are plenty of us who increase our wealth by assuming moderate risk with our own money for well-above-average returns. The key is to understand that everyone guesses wrong sometimes and to therefore manage risk so that one bad call won’t wipe you out, and certainly won’t cause significant harm to people who depend on you.