Last night on The Daily Show, Jon Stewart “interviewed” Jim Cramer, host of CNBC’s Mad Money. For days, Stewart had been antagonizing CNBC for exaggerated advertising and providing misleading/misrepresented information about the stock market and other investment strategies. Naturally, Stewart relied on cleverly spliced clips from several of CNBC’s shows to really drive the point home. Some of those featured Mad Money – a rather ridiculous circus of a show designed to get that “up at 3:00am coke-head” market – and when Cramer got wind, he apparently took issue (although I’d say he was more flattered than anything).
The following ensued:
external link to a 3-part video
http://blog.indecisionforever.com/2009/03/13/jon-stewart-and-jim-cramer-the-extended-daily-show-interview/
Let’s just get this out of the way – Cramer came off like a total douche caught in douche lights, but considering he was walking into a gunfight with a dull knife and an obviously guilty conscience, it was to be expected. Stewart, conversely, held all the cards. Yet his approach, dialogue, and tactics – all of which he had total premeditated control over – were misguided and unimpressive. Stewart basically spent his time doing two things (each discussed in turn): (1) bashing the network(s); and (2) bashing Cramer.
(1) Network accountability
Here is a list of various issues Stewart has with the way CNBC operates in the financial news sector:
(a) Aggressive advertising ["We have the experts you need..." / "In Cramer we trust..." / etc.]
(b) Producing shows with titles and “attitudes” that are explicitly/implicitly designed to give viewers feelings of confidence and security [Fast Money / Mad Money / On The Money / etc.].
(c) Reporting on information provided by presumably reliable sources without much back-checking
(d) Focusing on the entertainment aspect more than focusing on the nitty-gritty details of current ongoings (making conclusory suggestions; not explaining things fully in academic terms)
(e) Providing information that is risky at best, and may ultimately be incorrect
Before proceeding, it should be noted that ideologically, Stewart and myself do not share much in common other than the desire for “common sense” to make its way back into politics. Stewart, being the raging liberal that he is who has a tendency to lean left, is obviously going to be more, shall we say “protective” of idiots people.
(a) Advertising is advertising; it is what it is. It’s filthy, deceptive, and designed to mindfuck peons. But guess what? It’s 99% unregulated (1% for “indecency,” whatever that means) and the 1st Amendment deems it so. Deal with it, lemmings.
(b) As opposed to what? Slow, Steady Money, Be Nice With Money, and Sort Of Near The Money But Not Necessarily Right On It Per Se? This might be funny as a comedy sketch, but it holds no real argument. Moving on.
(c) As Cramer repeatedly tried to point out, CNBC reporters make a concerted effort to get viable information, when possible, straight from the horse’s mouth. Why? Because when an executive goes on record about the financial status of his institution, he is bound by law to be honest. Let me repeat that sentiment: if a corporate executive of a traded company publicly lies about its finances, he is breaking the law. See Securities Protection Investor Act. I can’t think of any other news sector where informants are held to a duty of candor by Federal law, can you? Am I suggesting that reporters like Cramer couldn’t be more thorough in the analysis and presentation of such information? Of course not. But let’s try to refocus some of that vengeful frustration on the real culprits here, who, by the way, Cramer himself is now (shamelessly) seeking indictments for.
(d) Have you ever sat down with a group of television executives? All they care about (ironically) is money (i.e. ratings). More importantly, have you ever sat down to watch an educational NOVA-esque nightly show about current market trends. No? No shit; of course you haven’t. If you would, there would be plenty on the air, but you don’t, so this is the shit you get. Thankfully, they air it after American Idol ends so you don’t have to make such tough decisions for yourself.
(e) You don’t say. Look, if your mental red flag doesn’t pop up during a television show that is prefaced with a goddamn disclaimer, then you should be sterilized by the State. Oh, that and it’s the fucking stock market, dumbshits.
Mad Money disclaimer (caution: retard spoiler)
All opinions expressed by Jim Cramer on this website and on the show are solely Cramer’s opinions and do not reflect the opinions of CNBC… You should not treat any opinion expressed by Cramer as a specific inducement to make a particular investment or follow a particular strategy, but only as an expression of his opinion. Cramer’s opinions are based upon information he considers reliable, but neither CNBC nor its affiliates and/or subsidiaries warrant its completeness or accuracy, and it should not be relied upon as such. Cramer’s statements and opinions are subject to change without notice.
Past performance is not indicative of future results. Neither Cramer nor CNBC guarantees any specific outcome or profit. You should be aware of the real risk of loss in following any strategy or investment discussed on this website or on the show. Strategies or investments discussed may fluctuate in price or value. Investors may get back less than invested. Investments or strategies mentioned on this website or on the show may not be suitable for you. This material does not take into account your particular investment objectives, financial situation or needs and is not intended as recommendations appropriate for you. You must make an independent decision regarding investments or strategies mentioned on this website or on the show. Before acting on information on this website or on the show, you should consider whether it is suitable for your particular circumstances and strongly consider seeking advice from your own financial or investment adviser.
Does this clear things up for you Jon? As you so astutely pointed out by unintentionally quoting The Big Lebowski, “this isn’t a fucking game [Walter].” So perhaps you should read this aloud to your 75 year old mother instead of trying to guilt trip some doofus network puppet on your variety news show.
(2) Attacking Jim Cramer
I do not have much to say about this other than (a) Cramer is not the brightest or quickest bulb on the porch, (b) he clearly has a tremendous amount of guilt (rightly or wrongly) built up over this issue that prevented him from being assertive (either that or he’s just a big pussy), and (c) it was horribly tacky to continuously revert back to a previously unpublished video tape of a casual conversation that was never intended for television.
Of course, the purpose of repeatedly bashing Cramer was not to make it personal – oh no, not at all – it was to show that, as a hedge fund executive, he had intimate knowledge of sketchy Wall Street activity that he should have known would eventually cause the stock market to crumble to the ground; thus, how dare he provide investment suggestions based on nothing more than an entire decade of growth and wealth when clearly the end was neigh? And when things started to look bleak but Cramer stuck to his guns on the basis of years of strong personal relationships with firm execs and the (alleged) lies they told, how dare he present his resulting opinion to his audience? But that wasn’t personal at all. In fact, it was so impersonal that when Cramer made a half-hearted attempt to refer to his own actions, Stewart quickly intervened by gallantly stating that “this isn’t about you.” Huh? Bad form, Mr. Stewart. Bad form indeed.
[EDIT] I’ve since learned that these clips were taken from a previously published 6+ minute interview Cramer gave for TheStreet.com in 2006. Apple was the subject because this interview came a couple weeks before MacWorld 2007, and Apple stock prices were the soup de jour. While this does take away some of the sympathy I gave Cramer, it does not in any way lessen the argument presented here – that Stewart was clearly attacking and trying to villainize Cramer on a personal level – nor does it any more successfully impart some phantom duty of care on Cramer as an entertainer as Stewart would have you believe. [END EDIT]
