I’m sorry, but I must take the strongest exception to this; your claim is completely false. If Cramer was nothing more than an entertainer, then that implies that “Mad Money” does not purport to convey information about the financial markets. But it clearly DOES purport to convey information. Cramer, silly though he may be, is not up there juggling or acting in a sitcom; he’s talking about real news and claiming to have relevant information that people can base investment decisions on.
Of course CNBC is trying to increase viewership and must be entertaining to do so, but there is absolutely no question that they are presenting themselves as a source of news. They market themselves as a news source. If you don’t believe me, here is how CNBC describes themselves:
The colors are flashy and the production values high but the network is presented as a news source, does programming in news formats, and does not broadcast other types of shows. Cramer’s bit may be the loudest and silliest part of CNBC but there’s no ambiguity whatsoever; it’s presented as being reporting and commentary on facts. It’s not presented as a sitcom or a variety show.
If CNBC is a serious news organization, as they claim to be, then they have a civic responsibility to behave like a serious news organization and do serious investigation into the claims of newsmakers. If they’re not a serious news organization then they should stop lying about it.
*A few years ago, when banking regulators started requiring filings in XBRL from its member banks, it found that the time it took auditors to review a bank’s quarterly financial information dropped from about 70 days to two.
*
They propose that by standardizing the “free writing prospectus” reports about mortgage-backed securities, an investor could compare each banks strategies and find problems. Some financial Nate Silver could have discovered just how risky these strategies are.
Some of this might be obvious to people who know a lot more about this area, but I found it interesting.
**RickJay **- I hear what you are saying and agree with your argument on a high-level. But certainly it is more complex than that - typically a news channel separates between “content” and “opinion” - recently Shep Smith of Fox News (I know - snerk but hear me out) spoke to this in an Esquire article. He basically said that he has nothing to do with the Opinion programs that start in the evenings, peaking on Fox with Bill O’Reilly - he never speaks to them, focuses on the news and reporting it, etc.
Okay - while I may take exception to Smith’s claim of delivering news, his point is sound: most news stations have a mix between content and opinion. But there is a whole lot of blurriness between the two - in how they market themselves, in having Opinion-types act as pundits and guests on the News-type shows, etc. But the point is that a news channel tries to prop up their reputation on their news reporting but can hide behind cries of “that’s Opinion” when explaining away crap like O’Reilly, Cramer or Anderson Cooper doing something self-serving and silly in the middle of more legit reporting on AC360. So, with CNBC, where would you put Cramer? On the News <----> Opinion spectrum, he is clearly over on the Opinion side, IMH…O
I am not saying your assertions are in any way wrong, merely that news networks try to add distinctions so they can claim to be a trusted source for news while also foisting off any-old viewer-increasing programming they can try to get to stick to the wall…
I believe Smith believes what he’s saying, but it’s a worthless distinction, and in my opinion the news channels do their own viewers a disservice by presenting news and opinion side by side. When Cramer says “they know nothing” or picks a stock, anybody can tell he’s presenting his opinion. But what about when the commentators present facts in a misleading way? If their viewers trust them, they’re being misinformed. The distinction between “content” and “opinion” is important to the networks and journalists, who believe it protects their objectivity, but I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s not an important distinction in the way the information is viewed.
Of course you’re right - and what if Anderson Cooper reports important facts about hurricane Katrina - but then leaps into the water to help, in a way that seems nicely, well, helpful, but also self-serving, calculated and nothing to do with actual news or journalism?
I don’t think that’s how they are presenting him. His bio on the CNBC website says that he is markets commentator for TheStreet.com, and a columnist for TheStreet.com and New York magazine. It mentions that he was president and editor-in-chief of the Harvard Crimson, and a reporter for the Tallahassee Democrat and the Los Angeles Herald Examiner. Also that he was a hedge fund manager and founder/owner and senior partner of Cramer Berkowitz, with a “compounded rate of return of 24% after all fees for 15 years.” It also mentions that he graduated from Harvard Law School and was admitted to the New York Bar. It says, in fact, that “he serves as the viewer’s personal guide through the confusing jungle of Wall Street investing, navigating through both opportunities and pitfalls with one goal in mind – to help them make money.”
They are clearly presenting him as someone with a legal, journalism and finance background, way more than simply an entertainer.
Not the same issue. I’m talking about mixing reporting, which is supposed to be a presentation of the facts, with commentary, which is an interpretation of the facts where the truth is not always as clear.
I’ve been offline since Thursday night so I’m just now reading some of the reviews. The gamut is eclectic, to say the least. Besides the usual media outlets, I was surprised to see these two:
Watching this clip made me extremely angry. Stewart really could have torn Cramer a new one about his endorsement of market manipulation during short sells–instead he, rightfully, focused on the environment at CNBC. Still, the fact that Cramer knew about, practiced, and encouraged this type of behavior is just appalling.
The thing that scares me the most is the kind of power he has with a highly viewed CNBC show people take market advice from. One has to wonder if he doesn’t have “favors” called in to him by friends to “accidentally” spread a little bit of disinformation so they can manipulate the market more effectively.
Maybe it’s just cynicism on my part, but I have trouble believing he’s totally reformed and really, truly, is above all that now.
So, as the OP, I’ll have to say that my wish was substantially satisfied. What remains to be seen is to what extent Cramer, CNBC, and the TV news business in general get the message – you sell yourselves as a public service, so you have the obligations of a public service.
