Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Jon Stewart Becomes Angry Public's Avenger
Jon Stewart has amassed a passionate following as a sharp-edged satirist who punctures the balloons of the powerful with a caustic candor that reporters cannot muster
WASHINGTON - Jon Stewart has amassed a passionate following as a sharp-edged satirist who punctures the balloons of the powerful with a caustic candor that reporters cannot muster.
Jon Stewart hosts a taping of Comedy Central's 'The Daily Show with Jon Stewart' Thursday, March 12, 2009 in New York.(AP Photo/Jason DeCrow) As public furor over the economic meltdown rises, the Comedy Central star has turned not just his humor but his full-throated outrage against financial journalists who he says aided and abetted the likes of Bear Stearns, AIG and Citigroup, especially those who work for the nation's top business-news channel.
Stewart morphed into a populist avenging angel this week, demanding to know why CNBC and its most manic personality, Jim Cramer, failed to warn the public about the risky Wall Street conduct that triggered the financial crisis.
"It's bigger than CNBC," said Jeff Jarvis, who teaches journalism at the City University of New York. "As anger rolls across the land about the mess we're in, it's also hitting people who cover the financial world ... CNBC is the easiest target if you're doing comedy."
In his much-ballyhooed "Daily Show" faceoff with Cramer on Thursday, Stewart accused the network of peddling "snake oil."
"Listen, you knew what the banks were doing," Stewart said. "And yet were touting it for months and months - the entire network was. So now to pretend that this was some crazy, once-in-a-lifetime tsunami that no one could have seen coming was disingenuous at best and criminal at worst."
Cramer, a former hedge-fund manager known for his bombastic style, sounded apologetic at times, saying he had made mistakes and wished he and the network had done a better job. "I had a lot of CEOs lie to me on the show. It's very painful," the "Mad Money" host said.
Video of the interview immediately went viral and was prominently played Friday across the Web, giving it exposure that exceeds Stewart's television audience, which reached 2.3 million this week.
Much of the public, especially on the left, came to resent news organizations for not reporting more aggressively on the Bush administration's march to war in Iraq. Stewart's criticism may tap into similar sentiments about media complacency during the housing and credit bubble, especially since news outlets were widely accused of boosterism after the late-1990s tech boom that went bust.
The showdown with Cramer came eight days after Stewart blistered CNBC for offering bland assurances about the health of investment banks and for soft interviews such as one last year with R. Allen Stanford, who was asked: "Is it fun being a billionaire?" Stanford was charged last month in an alleged $8 billion fraud.
Cramer has told colleagues he felt blindsided by Stewart's hostile approach. But many CNBC employees were furious with Cramer on Friday for failing to defend the network's reporting or to criticize Stewart's video clips as selectively edited or out of context.
CNBC declined all interview requests, saying in a statement: "CNBC produces more than 150 hours of live television a week that includes more than 850 interviews in the service of exposing all sides of every critical financial and economic issue. We are proud of our record."
Cramer used an analogy to the college basketball playoffs to depict himself as the underdog in the contest. "When you are a Big East team and you are 16th seed in the Western Regional, you just want to leave with your head intact," he said by e-mail. "When I walked out I checked in the mirror, it was still attached."
Business journalists generally failed to anticipate the magnitude of the Wall Street collapse, reporting elements of the growing risks but rarely trumpeting the threat on the front pages or network newscasts. CNBC, a fixture on Wall Street, is hardly the only news organization to fall short.
Fortune magazine, for instance, reported in 2006 on "How Dick Fuld transformed Lehman from Wall Street also-ran to superhot machine." Fuld, the chief executive, led Lehman Brothers into bankruptcy.
Most news outlets ignored or minimized a decision by the Securities and Exchange Commission to rely on investment banks to police themselves, a move cited by The New York Times last fall as a key element in the debacle that followed.
At the same time, The Wall Street Journal, among others, highlighted the risks at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, now controlled by the government, and such columnists as Steven Pearlstein of The Washington Post and Gretchen Morgenson of The New York Times warned about massive credit risks.
CNBC was the first to report that federal authorities were considering a bailout of insurance giant AIG. Cramer warned viewers in October to get out of the stock market if they might need the money in the next five years. But the network also hosts a parade of corporate executives, fund managers and investment analysts with a vested interest in talking up stocks.
Stewart's video montage last week showed CNBC employees and guests appearing to rule out the notion that Lehman, AIG and Merrill Lynch could face bankruptcy, as happened soon afterward. Cramer was seen repeatedly touting Bear Stearns in the weeks before the company collapsed.
"People view him now as a truth-teller, not a joke-teller," Jon Friedman, media columnist for Marketwatch.com, said of Stewart, adding that he has turned CNBC into "the scapegoat for the recession."
Steve Friedman, a former top executive at NBC and CBS, called Stewart "a 2009 version of Will Rogers: a social commentator who pokes holes in people who don't usually get holes poked in them." He said CNBC had not been damaged by the ridicule: "They do some very good work, they do some very shoddy work. But if you're looking at how your stocks are doing, that's the place to go."
64 Comments so far
Show AllIt's no ____________ game. Indeed, as tragic as war is, throughout history more deaths and suffering have resulted from poverty, hunger, and lack of health care, sanitation and clean water than from wars. The greatest risk to the world today is the threat of global food shortages (esp. for the poor) environmental damage to clean air, water, and perhaps the climate changes of global warming and the rise of sea levels. These problems are often greatly compounded by the financial policies set on wall street, where so many global corporations trade. When we fail to examine the effects of these corporate policies, and report not just on stock prices, and world credit supplies, but on the trends of people moving into or out of poverty, hunger, and health care, as well as corporations with economies larger than most world nations, who through their pursuit of profit pollute the environment and disrupt local economies we do great damage to democratic societies, as people vote, and make decisions without understanding their effects. Jon S. has opened the possibility for some people to ask tough questions critical to setting a corrective direction for the world economy. It's trite, but there is an element of truth, 'there is enough for everymans need, but not for everymans greed'. Perhaps from the pain of this financial collaspe an honest evaluation of need, priority, and direction will arise.
no defense of cramer, but give him a mite of credit for being willing to go on the show (though stewart may have sucker punched him a bit by stating repeatedly before cramer's appearance that the media was making too big a deal out of nothing; but who cares if stewart blind-sided cramer given all the horrendous crap cramer and his ilk have wrought?)
only problem w/the interview: stewart failed to state the obvious, that cramer (and many others) should be in jail now.
In show biz, any publicity is good publicity. Cramer is in show biz. Unfortunately he had not made that clear, leading many to follow him.
Joe
I think the same. By stepping up to defend himself, he has become the face of everything the station was attacked for, and yes, it seems he deserved it. I am not so sure that this helped his own personal cause, so I also give him some credit here.
Good comments
Not even close. Ridiculous comments in fact, and you're sliding deeper and deeper in the Limbaugh crowd.
No credit whatsoever. He got caught, humiliated, and he simply tried to weasel. He failed.
No credit whatsoever. He's a lackey slimeball asslicker whose pretend, pandering pseudo-journalism hurt a lot of people who thought it was the real thing.
How on earth could Stewart have "sucker punched him"?????? Stewart did exactly what he does in situations like that, and he only continued the exposure that had upset Cramer in the first place. You can't be so naive as to think that it made sense for Cramer to expect that Stewart would simply listen to him make his weak, dishonest, sniveling excuses and then say: "Well, there you go folks; that's the other side. Thank you for being here Mr. Cramer. Our next guest..." !!!!?????
Cramer is a hugely paid pseudo-journalist scumbag. His behavior as a stenographer to the financial wiz-kids whose management of our financial system he's supposed to research and explain is totally reprehensible. Not doing his job at all is about as serious as it gets. He's in fact effectively covering up the crime.
Of course he felt sheepish to have been exposed and mocked so he thought that with his superior communication skills he could weasel his way out by claiming: "They lied to me" (in a pathetic, whimpering voice). F..k him, his family, and his ilk.
Stewart should have called him a lying, unprofessional, ass-licking lackey to his face.
With big brother at the wheel, the only way you can constantly criticize those in power and media is through satire or fictional drama.
Thank God for Jon Steward. Without him, the youth of America would have no clue what is going on. (indeed, many adults too.)
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
Kurtz sez: "... many CNBC employees were furious with Cramer on Friday for failing to defend the network's reporting ..."
followed by: "CNBC declined all interview requests..."
***
Way to defend your reporting, guys.
How would he have defended the network? Stewart had a video to
debunk every BS excuse he tried to use. My question is, why did
he go on the show to begin with? It's sad when you get more
truthful news from a comedy show than all the "News" channels
put together. They (CNN, Fox, CBS, ABC, NBC and the rest) haven't
asked a real question in the last eight years. They just went along with whatever bullshit the Bush administration fed them.
If there were any real reporters among them, they would have
exposed some of the lies that led us to Iraq. Instead, they
helped spread the BS.
Good on ya John. Now take on AIPAC.
Amen
HA! HA! HA! Jon Stewart Leibowitz has no interest in going after the real devils. A tool in a much more sinister game, he is just providing a distraction pointing the finger at the foolish TV messengers while letting the perpetrators off. Did he ever name a single corporate Wall Street devil or was this show just birdseed thrown to his non-critical audience at the expense of a foolish Santilli, and the hapless Cramer in order to take the attention away from Bear, Stearns, Madoff, Lehman and the gang of usual suspects. Cramer used to work for Alan Dershowitz.
...an old parable:
A goy insisted that a Talmudist explain to him what the Talmud was. The sage finally consented and asked the goy the following question:
"Two men climb down a chimney. When they come to the bottom, one has his face covered with soot, the other is spotless. Which of the two will wash himself?"
"The one who is dirty," answered the goy.
"No, for the one who's dirty sees the others' clean face and believes he is clean too. The one who's clean sees a dirty face and believes his is dirty too."
"I understand!" the goy exclaimed. "I'm beginning to understand what the Talmud is."
"No, you have understood nothing at all," the rabbi interrupted, "for how could two men have come down the same chimney, one dirty and the other clean?"
michael jordan
http://sites.google.com/site/apolloguide/
Brilliant.
Thank you.
"Cramer used to work for Alan Dershowitz." - What does this mean in the context of the article?
I've been saying for years that Stewart is one of the best interviewers around. He asks the questions that we all WANT asked by the "real" news, but aren't.
In times when the ruling class doesn't want the truth to come out, the only place where it can is from the humorists. Any real discussion is going to be either ignored or shouted down, if not dealt with very harshly. Back in the days of royalty, the only person who could speak truth to power was the court jester. Anyone else could lose their heads over it. Stewart is our jester. It's just now that he is taking the power he deserves. He is the ONLY person in "news" speaking truth. In fact, his show is more honest and truthful than anything on ANY of the 24 hour "news" channels.
Hey WJM, I see we were both having the same thought at the same time!
"Hey WJM, I see we were both having the same thought at the same time!"
Hi Elaine. What can I tell you? Great minds think alike.
>>I've been saying for years that Stewart is one of the best interviewers around. He asks the questions that we all WANT asked by the "real" news, but aren't.
I concur. I watched the interviews several times over and felt it one of the BEST Interviews I had seen in years. Jon Stewart is very smart. I especially like how he so quickly rebutted the defenses offerred by Cramer.
It was so good you would almost think it a scripted movie.
Any debater worth their salt prepares for the interview by analyzing what the likely arguements and counter arguements will be...
Kramer just came from the other Stewart's Studio, making pie, and thought this interview would be a cake walk as well...
Not only was Jon more prepared, but he had the advantage of being authentic and honest, which always trumps excuses and lies...
This is not the first time Jon has deservingly skewered a guest on the Daily Show... He raked Sununu over the coals a few months ago, and has taken others to task in a way that puts other TV journalists to shame... I wish Colbert would evolve his schtick a little more... The O'Reilly personality Spoof/parody is funny and all, but he interupts the guests all to often, and rarely gets to the heart of the matter since the Roast of the Century at the White House Press Dinner...
G O L D E N _ M E A N
Great comments, and I believe that Stephen Colbert
… is moving "right" ( < < < < ) along, as one week ago he so well blasted into into Rush's all too thin shell. I'm certain that bigger targets, with far more devastating illumination is soon coming -- of all of those roach wanna be bees ( so as to fly away ).
Please view yesterday's Colbert Report ( Wag of finger at 13:20 in ) clear statement about RUSH :
_____ http://www.hulu.com/watch/61049/the-colbert-report-thu-mar-5-2009 _____
Which includes such colorful verbiage about possible obsequious crack licking, regarding:
"the vacuum in republican leadership has allowed
a mean spirited lardass talk radio mind corpse
to become the de facto leader - which is turning an
already crippled party into a bickering laughing stock "
Namaste
It seems to me that a lot of TV show hosts are still figuring out how to come up with interesting and revelant material now that the world's favorite human punchline is no longer in office... Colbert especially...
I loved his transition from saying g'bye to hating McCain... to embracing Obama after the election...
It will be interesting to see how this comedian crafted characature evolves during this administration...
Good to hear him make fun of Rush...
This makes me wonder, is TV the only entity in this deregulated debacle that has shown the (possible) ability to police itself?
Jon Stewart usually plays the role of the medieval "Fool", the only member of the court allowed to criticize the king through entertainment and comedy.
But the Cramer interview was succinct, well researched, and a very erudite Jon Sterwart managed to keep his own ego well in check. No funny faces, no jokes, just question after on-point question.
So we have true investigative journalism being practiced by the Comedy channel, and explained by Jon Stewart to Jim "they lied to me!" Cramer.
The only problem I see here is that if CNBC is made to be the scapegoat, then the spotlight will be off of the real villains. Probably the whole point...
I agree up to the point where you imply there was some sinister point to the whole thing. I think what we saw was an extremely credible Stewart said what was on his mind and on the minds of lots of others. I don't even think he wanted to do this, but I do think he is accepting now that he has a lot of power. He is credible because folks know he is not afraid to laugh at himself, and he is smart. He also doesn't kiss up to anyone and he says what most of us would like to be able to say. The thing I like about Stewart is you know he is the kind of guy who would be just as happy hanging out with his children as making mega millions just to be liked.
thong-girl
I didn't mean to imply that it was Stewart who would dangle Cramer out to dry in order to create a diversion from the real villains.
I do think that the spokesmen for NBC and Marketwatch (who made the scapegoat comment) and their cohorts would love it if people focused on Cramer and Stewart as a distraction.
Call it the Terri Schiavo tactic if you will. Get the people's attention on the left hand while the right hand performs the sleight.
Sorry I was not more clear on this point.
It is still all theatre if no one is brought to account, as both Cramer and Stewart agreed that they should.
If Stewart can put on enough pressure to actually get someone indicted then that's real power.
"But the Cramer interview was succinct, well researched, and a very erudite Jon Sterwart managed to keep his own ego well in check. No funny faces, no jokes, just question after on-point question."
Stewart is always well researched. There is a reason his show is the best game in town and has been even during the worst of the Bush years. His funny faces and fart noises are a ploy to keep the pretext its a comedy show, all the while slamming truth to power. Its not Democracy Now but it clearly has its place.
There's an old adage that the fellow who holds the bag is just as guilty as the one who shoves the stolen goods in the bag.
Pretty much the same applies to the media, especially since they belong to the same companies who make the bucks from selling snake oil, etc. So I don't agree with your main point: "The only problem I see here is that if CNBC is made to be the scapegoat, then the spotlight will be off of the real villains."
The $$$ scum who gamed our financial system and blew it up, are timeless, universal profiteering scum, and it will never change. We the people simply need to control them with appropriate rules and regs. But the press plays a fundamental role--the most important by far, even more than the legal apparatus.
The profiteering scum will constantly be trying to increase their $$$ by whatever means. Depend on it. Only a professional, functional press can keep them honest (along with our legal system, but laws are of no value if the population doesn't know what the hell is going on.
People now readily know that bankers are wankers. That they didn't act out of knowing what they were doing in general terms, but acted solely for selfish purposes. People are not so readily aware of the role played by the press in the leadup to the melt-down. Slam the bastards I say. The scammers should be prosecuted and punished, I agree. And some have and some more will. Not nearly enough I'm sure.
But it's hard to imagine that the guilty media will suffer anywhere near what they should. So more power to Stewart and anybody else who can fling the brown stuff at them.
John is getting great press for this. Deservedly so.
That same energy and critical attention could be applied to John's show and network for their selling to the public the "official" 9/11 story.
Stewart accused the network of peddling "snake oil."
The pimps are dead. Long live the pimps!
CNBC will make Cramer redundant and he will move over to Fux News, rolled up sleeves and all, where he will team up with Glenn Beck, the Norman Bates of tv journalism, and preach doom and gloom about Obama.
"giving it exposure that exceeds Stewart's television audience, which reached 2.3 million this week"
Stewart got at most a total of 3 million viewers on the show Thursday, or 2% of the adult population responsible for public policy. The remaining 98% were busy sampling the 10,000 pastry flavors at the "supermarket" deli.
Give Stewart another show--a serious one a la Cramer. Here he can skewer Iraq,Afghanistan, Israel, etc. Obam's new gitmo (same old, same old) policies.
We need a non cheerleader..
Deepa
"Much of the public, especially on the left, came to resent news organizations for not reporting more aggressively on the Bush administration's march to war in Iraq. Stewart's criticism may tap into similar sentiments about media complacency during the housing and credit bubble...."
I am really surprised for this "spin" on Jon Stewart's COURAGEOUS CONFRONTATION with Cramer, one of the zealous supporters of the American corporate greed.
What is more suprising is the blatant lie that Howard Kurtz wrote: "Much of the public, especially on the left, came to resent news organizations for not reporting more aggressively on the Bush administration's march to war in Iraq." Did the news organizations like CNBC report "aggressively" FOR bombing/invasion of Iraq or AGAINST it?
The combined voice of the government and the corporate media drowned dissenting voices against invasion of Iraq, and programmed the public mind to go along with the state agenda to bomb and invade Iraq. The corporate media played as the chief instrument of state propaganda. It created the momentum for the invasion of Iraq.
On September 8, 2002 The New York Times published a front-page article by Michael Gordon and Judith Miller entitled “US Says Hussein Intensifies Quest for A-Bomb Parts.” They alleged that Iraq attempted to purchase aluminum tubes for developing nuclear weapons. This article was used by the Bush administration to help make the case for invading Iraq. On that same day a host of higher government officials appeared on the media using the article to make a public relations campaign.
Vice President Dick Cheney appeared on NBC’s Meet the Press, hosted by Tim Russert and said: "There’s a story in the New York Times this morning. This is -- and I want to attribute the Times. I don't want to talk about, obviously, specific intelligence sources… It’s now public that, in fact, he has been seeking to acquire, and we have been able to intercept and prevent him from acquiring, through this particular channel, the kinds of tubes that are necessary to build a centrifuge. And the centrifuge is required to take low-grade uranium and enhance it into highly enriched uranium, which is what you have to have in order to build a bomb."
Condoleezza Rice said on CNN: “There will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he (Saddam) can acquire a nuclear weapon. But we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." Bob Scheiffer, former CBS 6.30 p.m. News host, on Face the Nation reiterated: “We read in the New York Times today a story that says that Saddam Hussein is closer to acquiring nuclear weapons. Does he have nuclear weapons? Is there a smoking gun here?” Thus, the government and the corporate media joined together in one voice to convince the public to join the US’ genocidal violence against Iraq.
Now the same news networks are drumming slowly but steadily their support for aggression against Iran. Did these networks any time report the US' covert terrorist acts inside Iran? Did they report that the US is making use of several terrorist organizations, such as Jundullah, Mujahideen-e-Khalq, Partiya Jiyana Azad a Kurdistane (a Kurdish terrorist group), to carry out covert attacks inside Iran? CNBC belongs to GE, which profits from wars?
These news channels will continue to have monopoly on "programming public mind" and "manufacturing" public support for the AMERICAN CORPORATE GREED (at the cost of human life), unless there are voices like Jon Stewart in the society.
“Don’t be a hater, don’t be a cynic!” Campaign chanters, Spring 2008.
Last year one could hear these very words being shouted out from ‘the snows of Iowa’ to ‘the Good People of South Carolina’, from the college campuses of California, to the granite faced Maine. Playing the role of the cynic, the comic, the prankster, the coyote, and the clown, was ridiculed by the mob. Today, Jon Stewart, “the steward of America’s angry populists” is lauded with grapes and saffron. Is he funny and clever? Oh,yes! Is he a voice of truth or a modern day ‘avenger’ on the staging ground for a populist movement, or perhaps a 'revival' in journalistic reporting? No.
He is not praised for uncloaking immediate events or projecting potential fallout from current affairs. He is celebrated for rounding up people and mocking them for past events. Oh, what righteous scorn, what awesomeness –except, Stewart wasn’t mocking these guys for the excessive market a year ago. He wasn’t warning the populace of the absurdities of logic and the half-truths and ponzi schemes of the inflated real estate market and credit industry – and thus living up to the mythological image of the journalistic idealism this circus of righteousness allegedly is based on. That’s where the poetic justice is in all of this lambasting, if only Jon Stewart could say, “I told you so, because I saw it coming. I told the people, look out! I was the beacon on the hill….” Instead, he gets his best ratings of sideshow buffoonery for being the voice of retroactive scorn.
What he is doing is entertaining a population who would like to see people put on display and ridiculed, but what happens is the mob’s anger is reinforced in a fabricated format far too easily manipulated by market and political apparatchiks he allegedly isn’t assisting. Those in the audience who find glee in the performance are satisfied and vindicated and go home rested and sleep well after a flurry of twittering and emailing of regurgitated one-lines. Their hunger is satiated. Overnight they lose their power, their rage, in the proclamation the Will Rogers of the moment is the new avenger who puts it to the man, popping a hole in the oligarchy. Our focus is diffused and once again we lose the scent. Worse, without any suspicion people willfully assign power to Stewart and others like him and defer their personal involvement.
The satiated consumer (sorry, the angry populist) feels so good, he shovels an extra heap of dark leafy greens on to his plate and contemplates going out for a session but decides it’s too much trouble to get everybody together in a pub. Instead, we twitter off with our friends.
"Stewart wasn’t mocking these guys for the excessive market a year ago. He wasn’t warning the populace of the absurdities of logic and the half-truths and ponzi schemes of the inflated real estate market and credit industry – and thus living up to the mythological image of the journalistic idealism this circus of righteousness allegedly is based on."
Dear Mr. Twit,
You're missing the point. When has Jon Stewart claimed to be a financial wizard who saw it all coming? Why are you expecting a comedian to have predicted the financial meltdown? Stewart is pointing out that the people who are (or claim to be) financial wizards, didn't see this coming. Or worse, that they did see it coming, and chose not to warn us.
I don't have to have the eyes of an eagle to be pissed that the lookout was sleeping on the job.
I've not missed the alleged point of blind and pissed people feeling some satisfaction in Stewart, but you are making my point.
The notion of a "look out" is a false ideal, a myth. It doesn't exist. Pissed that nobody was "awake" is pissing in the wind.
Finding solace in a cable TV knockdown is a fool's cheap entertainment and not a solution or an example of a reality. It is feigned and crafted for couch hustlers who live on chips and dip.
The point isn't him predicting the crash, but that he is being touted as some primary example of direct action journalism (hence the hyphens I used)... and the point is all people are getting out of this is a quick feeding frenzy and empty calories, but it is being ramped up as some moment of great triumph. No, to the contrary, it diffuses the focus now that everybody can piss on Cramer and CNBC just like FOX of last decade and still miss the boat. In the meantime, the hustled are led to slaughter and no long lasting good comes of it because we are too quick to accept the sideshow over direct action. Hence, twitter v sessions.
You're right about one thing; I most certainly am a twit.
"The notion of a "look out" is a false ideal, a myth. It doesn't exist. Pissed that nobody was "awake" is pissing in the wind." Blah, blah, blah.
Paul Krugman has been howling from the rooftops about the housing bubble, the need for regulation, the huge risks of all that morgage-backed crap, etc., for years. And he's not at all the only one. He didn't exactly predict what happened, but he continuously pointed out the weaknesses that were amongst the major contributors to the meltdown.
It's not at all leftist idealism to expect a wee bit of professionalism from TV financial analysts.
Contact the company where you took that "creative writing" course and demand your money back.
Jon Stewart sliced & diced CNBC & Co. over the 3 episodes focusing on the problem of CNBC's (and the rest of the "business media" community, with some exceptions) "unawareness". Stewart really should do some follow up on this subject and get people like Nouriel Roubini to come on his show.
As was the case with Iraq, any guest who went negativer against the grain of "prosperity forever" and issued warnings of what was to come was trashed and virtually vilified by the so called experts at CNBC. Roubini was one such guest and victim.
I'd dearly love to see Stewart rip Larry Kudlow to shreds. IMHO, Kudlow is one of the vilest human beings working in media today.
Jon Stewart did a great job on Cramer - or "Creamer" as he called him.
Cramer got caught, for defending a CNBC that supported the fraudulent stock-bubble. Indeed, CNBC - owned 80 % by market-player GE - was part of the bubble. Anyone who ever earned money to buy anything could see the "market" was unreal and going to implode. And the stock-market's far from finished imploding. It's still unreal.
Cramer on the Daily Show laid himself so flat that a water-surface is steep in comparison.
Contemptible turd trying to weasel his way out of responsibility, like a participant in a mob saying "I didn't do it, I was just watching ... and maybe shouting a little, but don't blame me, honestly, I just happened to be there, didn't do nuthin'...".
Stewart is simply being real. "In Stewart we trust", more than Cramer or even God.
While entertaining, neither of these guys is going to provide squat in terms of principled and valued input on the hidden cancerous tumor eating our political economic system: the "economics of empire" --- with its latest metastasis of theft via 'negative externality cost displacement' (that's what was done by these imperialist, ruling-elite crooks with their destructive 'innovation' of 'debt bombs').
Get serious. Follow the money. And 'the money' is gamed by an inverted “economy of empire” which very temporarily sustains itself (like Bernie’s PONZI) through negative externality cost dumping. Fortunately, Obama knows this and is ‘getting it done’ by shutting down the ruling-elite Empire’s expropriation of wealth ‘gravy train’ on the UBS express.
The “economics of Empire” is an economics of the Ponzi ---- which is to say, “it’s not economics at all but rather looting” --- just as economics Nobel laureate, George Akerlof said back in 2002 of the Bush administration’s government policy: “This is not normal government economic policy, but rather a form of looting”.
Yes, George, not only the economic policy of empire is “looting”, but the entire political-economic and geopolitical policy of any government which has morphed into empire (like ours) is nothing but looting and hierarchical power preservation.
All Empires have always been such and always will be. A people and their country can never reform empire (just like you can’t reform scorpions or cancer --- since it’s in their nature), but ‘the people’ can only successfully diagnose and excise the cancer of empire.
It’s well past time for the continuation of the American Revolution against this ‘Vichy’ Empire hidden within our own land. While it’s more difficult to detect than the old Empire of King George and his highly visible ‘Red Coats’, the leading of our minute-men have already studied the pathology report and completed the diagnosis of this hidden empire’s metastasis and now the call has already gone out to the skilled and patriotic surgeons. “To arms, to arms, all ye minute-men surgeons”.
“One if by see, and two if by guile”
“The Empire is coming. The empire is coming. To arms minute-men, the empire is HERE.”
Living in Costa Rica, as a US citizen, I can only get Jon Stewart the day after his broadcasts. But I look forward to the show, even when he chides Obama! Sometimes I think "Why doesn't he go into politics?" Then I realize, he's right where he needs to be!
Living in Costa Rica, as a US citizen, I can only get Jon Stewart the day after his broadcasts. But I look forward to the show, even when he chides Obama! Sometimes I think "Why doesn't he go into politics?" Then I realize, he's right where he needs to be!
Well, the assholes have Rush, and we have Jon.
Things may get very interesting in this country mediawise, especially if this proves to be the breakthrough event for Jon that I think it might. Imagine! A Comedy Central interview on the front page of the Washington Post! Imagine! A commentator who can tear the right a new rectum and be funny doing it, gaining a wide national audience!
Stay tuned folks, this may be just the start...
The difference is that Jon isn't establishing himself as the new leader of the Democratic Party, whereas, Rush apparently feels he is deserving of the leadership of the Republican Party. Too bad Rush didn't go the comedy route instead of the hate route.
I was really surprised by how much attention this got in the MSM but then I guess they're not used to any critical analysis of news.
I generally check the comedy channel for the major news items. While Stewart is knowledgeable and agile he is backed by a stable of writers (10-12 I think) including some that came from The Onion.
CQ from Maine
From Aristophanes through Swift to Stewart and Colbert political satirists have always been a bunch of angry artists who busy themselves protecting us from our enemies. And they left the identification of said enemy to Walt Kelly.
what limits the work is the commercial setting and that's not per say - the proceeds from the adds go to the very accounts owned by those who Steward demystifies
edweg
“The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable”
Ezra Solomon
“...This is America. How many of you people wanna pay for your neighbour’s mortgage that has an extra bathroom and can’t pay for their bills... raise your hands!” To which the bunch of Chicago traders surrounding Santelli reply with “boos” and other noises of protest and disgust.
Santelli, a former derivatives manager (!), was attacking the President for planning to “subsidize the losers’ mortgages” while he and and his Wall Street cronies have caused the CDS black hole and the implosion of the financial system in the first place.
Stewart: “Santelli believes in personal responsibility.[at least for others – he cancelled the interview on the Daily Show] He believes in not rewarding the losers who missed all the warning signs. I mean for god’s sakes the guy works at CNBC!” (He then played a promo-clip from CNBS (.....”only one network has the information and experience you need...”)
So “to educate themselves” Jon then encouraged “dumb US homeowners” to watch expert advice given on CNBC and shows some clips with Cramer and other “analysts” who had said Bear Stearns, Lehman, Merrill Lynch, AIG, etc. were all doing fine....
http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/index.jhtml?episodeId=220250
Stewart deserves credit for raising awareness about this fake “financial reporting” and the dangerous drift of financial “infotainment”:
“This is not a fucking game. You all knew what the banks did, what was going on...”
In principle he is right to demand some moral responsibility from networks whose financial “experts” pretend to be clairvoyant but in reality this is a futile exercise since corporate media (CNBC is controlled by GE) can hardly be expected to bite the hand which feeds it, and criticize the system which it is supposed to cater for.
But Stewart deserves criticism, too. Not too long ago he had Bill Clinton on the show (before Obama was elected President) but did not say a word about the administration’s massive contribution to the current financial diasaster: The Glass-Steagall Act, which prohibited commercial banks from offering investment banking and insurance services since the days of the Great Depression in 1933, was repealed under Clinton’s watch in 1999. Clinton’s Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin (coming from Goldman Sachs and on the way to Citigroup) was not surprisingly very enthusiastic about deregulation. A recent report by Essential Information and the Consumer Education Foundation indentifies 12 major causes for the financial meltdown, and the demise of Glass-Steagall is Step Nr.1 for the rise of “the culture of recklessness” that led us to the current global disaster.
Read the whole report here:
http://wallstreetwatch.org/soldoutreport.htm
On the same website is also a very positive example of financial TV reporting:
a video clip from MSNBC explaining in a nutshell the CAUSES of the financial meltdown.
Perhaps there is still hope for honest analysis?
"But Stewart deserves criticism, too... "
But why is it the fault of a COMEDY show for not doing serious, in dpeth interviews? Shouldn't that happen on NEWS shows? Stewart has said many times, and includes on the Cramer interview, that his is a COMEDY, FAKE news show. It's not his job, is it, to be the most in depth, informative, investigative journalist on TV.
The point of this is that he DID do a serious interview and did a damned good job of it. He usually does.
As to Clinton, he has far more than that to be sorry for and to be held accountable for. Don't forget NAFTA, which HW couldn't get passed and Clinton pushed through. And let's not gloss over the damage done by the media consolidation act, which is wny all of our news has gone to the 6 higest corporate bidders, essentially eliminating REAL news from the scene.
Stewart has very limited time to do an interview in. The 24 hour a day "news" channels have all freaking day, and they STILL don't do as good an interview as he does. he has asked more questions that needed to be asked in his time at TDS than ANY of the real news people has. And it's sad that his is a comedy show, while they are supposed to be the serious ones.
In that, you are missing the point. And quite honestly, he has once again shown the real "news" channels how to do an interview, how to ask the tough questions, and what jouranlism is actually SUPPOSED to be about. And I think that the audience and media reaction shows that if you DO the job and ask those questions, then the people will respond with a vigor that is quite understandable. It's like we have been starving for real information and real questions for decades, and when we actually get a smattering of it, we eat it up. What a surprise.