That’s a posting of the Associated Press article. I am curious as to what the people on MS(andC)NBC have to say tomorrow, though…
Oh, man, I love it when Brian Williams is on. I wasn’t able to find the clip last time I checked - I think it was the same show that led with coverage of Bob Hope’s death, including the obituaries written by people who were themselves dead. The 2003 video archive seems to be incomplete.
Anyway, Williams comes on, and he starts making fun of Comedy Central’s green room, or something similar, in a bit of back-and-forth about network amenities vs. those of basic cable. Stewart says, “Yeah, we even have to go across the street to use the bathroom.”
Williams pauses, looks ashamed, and says, “Oh my. I think I just did something terrible in somebody’s tiny office.”
After that, I became a firm believer in the comedic genius of Brian Williams.
Curious about one thing: a quote from the segment as quoted by Business Weekly’s blog:
So is he saying that’s the wrong thing to do? Or that it was wrong in this particular situation, and that she should’ve been told otherwise by media outlets like CNBC? I’m a little confused because some folks are saying that this is STILL the right thing to do, even now (though probably not for 75 year olds like Stewart’s mom).
For everyone that watched it live last night, appearently there is more.
“By the end, the two-segment interview went far beyond its allotted time. Comedy Central said the on-air version would be cut by about eight minutes, though the entire interview would be available unedited on ComedyCentral.com on Friday.”
Stewart: My mother is 75 and she bought into the idea that long term investing is the way to go and guess what?
Cramer: It didn’t work.
The point being the various financial companies were looking for short term gains at the cost of long term growth so there was only one outcome possible. Anyone who invested long term was going to lose.
Here’s the full interview. It’s two segments spread on three clips. The part above comes at 7:55 in the third clip.
The full interview takes a lot of the O’Reillyishness out of the aired version and Cramer defends himself better but not CNBC.
Thanks for this. Got a great laugh for the day.
The wisest thing I heard anyone say*. May I at least touch the hem of your garment?
*This week.
Poor Cramer. First the “fork in your ass” scandal, and now this----I fear he may never recover!
At one point, Cramer’s defense was that his was an “entertainment show.” That seemed disingenuous, as his show is presented as serious financial advice. In fact, his bio on the CNBC website says, “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.”
My 2 cents:
Stewart prefaced the interview by proclaiming that his criticisms that started this whole dust-up were not directed to Cramer specifically, but to CNBC in general, and the way they operate and present themselves.
OK, fine. But then he want on to directly attack Cramer with the 2006 interview clips, the Bear Stearns advice, and so on. Then, when Cramer attempted to defend himself, Stewart cut him off more than once with versions of “This isn’t about you!”
Stewart was on his home turf and it showed; Cramer never had a chance, partly because Stewart kept moving the goal posts.
That said, Cramer did a poor job of making whatever points he did have, and Stewart – not too surprisingly – showed a keen grasp of the material and was extremely adept at articulating his positions. The “Sherman’s March” analogy was brilliant.
And essentially Cramer ended up agreeing with Stewart on most of his major points, even (begrudgingly) what the role of a cable station representing itself as a financial news network should be.
Going all the way back to the OP, Stewart actually did throw out a line very similar to what acsenray was hoping for, something like, “You and I are both selling snake oil; the difference is that I’m clearly labeling what I’m selling as snake oil.”
Cramer kept offering the weak defense that he and others should have been able to predict what the stocks were going to do, Stewart kept reposting with accusing Cramer and others of being responsible for what the stocks did.
Stewart articulated and focused the anger of the common man, perhaps on someone not completely deserving, but it felt good that it was at least expressed to someone with some of the responsibility.
Yes, but for a while, in the middle part of the 20th century, before the big media conglomerates took over networks and newspapers and the Equal Time provisions were removed, many if not most journalistic organizations were not run exactly like ordinary businesses for that very reason. Most major newspapers were privately held, and there were “Chinese Walls” between the advertising and editorial departments just so advertisers couldn’t corrupt the content.
It’s a shame that that level of integrity and public service is now seen as quaint or impractical or out-of-date, but it served the country well for decades. I, for one, don’t believe that bloggers can take its place and am worried about the fate of democracy in a poorly informed nation.
gonzo, I gotta give you credit; this is, in the context of TDS and other forms of political humor, a brilliant summation.
I’m not sure what I think. On the one hand, Cramer was an irresponsible, indefensible douchebag who cheerfully told a trusting audience that nothing was wrong when something foul was in the financial air as far back as mid-2007. On the other that was essentially a 22-minute rant by Stewart. Cramer couldn’t defend his actions since there is no defense for them, but at the same time Stewart wants to drop more blame on CNBC than what is really due.
That wasn’t so much an interview as it was execution.
Come on, if Stewart had shown clips of other economists and stock pickers Cramer just would have said he didn’t agree, Stewart had to use videos of him so they had a common reality.
You don’t argue theology with a Christian using the Koran.
Is there any feedback on the MSM? I didn’t see any commentary on MSNBC yet and Morning Joe was bitching about Stewart with Cramer the other day. Today nothing.
Jon’s point is that there are really two market. There’s the market for 75 year olds and people with 401(k)s who are told to buy and hold and not time the market. There’s also the market for insiders who use shenanigans like Cramer described in the clips to manipulate the market at the expense of average investors.
Further, Jon isn’t just deriding the fact that the two “markets” exist, he’s holding CNBC responsible for failing to protect the American public from the shenanigans even though they were fully aware of it and were in an excellent position to call it out.
A point of clarification that Jon didn’t make is that we’re not talking about savvy investors successfully timing the market while common investors are told to just buy and hold their 401(k). He’s talking about people manipulating the market through shenanigans.
I think Stewart’s bigger point was that CNBC knew that the shenanigans were only possible by leveraging the 401(k)s and that CNBC had a responsibility to sound the warning bells and not ask people how it felt to be wealthy; but to ask them how responsible is it to build wealth at the risk of destroying pension funds, college funds, etc.
Oh, man. I’m halfway through the interview, and I actually feel for Cramer. He sounds like he’s about to cry from the whuppin’.