| Mad Money host Jim Cramer took a drubbing from Jon Stewart on The Daily Show last night (watch online). But talk about creative destruction — at the end of the interview, Cramer accepted a challenge to take a more hard-nosed, investigative tack on his own show. Imagine if Cramer had gone on Mad Money in August of last year to deliver the same kind of withering take-down to then-Lehman C.E.O. Richard Fuld that he endured last night? Would it have made a difference in the meltdown? [%comments]
Creative Destruction
TAGS: Jim Cramer, Media
and 
. You can also watch it on 
No, it would not have made a difference.
What would have made a difference was the two years leading up to August of last year. Imagine if for two years, CNBC had been telling the viewers that the record profits that the banks were enjoying were the results of market manipulation, and that it was as empty as a bubble could be. They didn’t, though. They just figured if capitalists were making tons of money, all was right with the world, which contributed to keep it going.
The daily show episode came across as Jim Cramer was responsible for the entire mess of the current economy. This is really blaming an extremely small fish for what the other fish have done.
The more I watch of the Daily Show (with John Stewart) the more I can’t help but notice just how black and white everything is that is viewed by the people in the audience. It is almost like the three stooges, a very predictable plot and a set punch line.
Lets look for the easiest scape goat and make fun of him. I couldn’t help but feel sorry for Jim Cramer. There are so many people a lot more deserving of a drubbing than Jim.
While I agree that Cramer took quite a verbal beating. I think the strength of Stewart’s argument was pretty weak and internally inconsistent. He attacked Cramer personally and when Cramer tried to defend him self Stewart’s retort was that “this song ain’t about you”. He derided CNBC for failing to catch madoff but then says “No one is asking them to be a regulatory agency”.
All in all I thinks this is one of Stewart’s worst interviews in quite a long time.
I think Cramer is in some way responsible; his show is especially popular with non-investors, middle and lower-middle class folks; people who might not be investing in the market. Many of those folks lost a bunch, and might not have had financial advice not been turned into entertainment, as Cramer himself said that he has an entertainment show.
Stewart is becoming increasingly full of himself. But hey, if I had a live studio audience eating out of my hand every weekday, I’d probably be the same.
Stewart is completely intellectually dishonest at every turn.
He issues one sided attacks for the benefit of his hugely partisan audience, and when called on it, pulls out the “Oh hey, I’m just a COMEDIAN” routine.
He wants to swim in the same pool as the rest of the journalistic fish, but at the same time hold himself above its criticism. It’s dishonest.
His propagandizing for collectivism is another thing entirely…
I wonder what role folks seem to think is appropriate for John Stewart and Stephen Colbert. I think the point of their shows, as well as shows like South Park by Trey Parker and Matt Stone serve as satire (a voice generally lacking in modern American dialogue). They are meant to point out the inconsistencies, incongruities and in many cases, lies, put out by corporate, media and political interest groups. They are meant to make their audience think, ask questions, and of course, get a laugh. We are in a time when many great media outlets are closing down (Rocky Mountain Times), laying off amazing journalists, and cutting editorial and longer pieces. Simultaneously, so many intricate crises are unfolding, and the American (and global) audience are desperately trying to get information, and understand. Perhaps this was the moment when someone like John Stewart could take some outlet to task for failing in their duty to question, investigate and inform. At the very least, it has sparked a national conversation about what the role of the media was in the economic meltdown (conceding that they aren’t the only ones guilty of this) should have been and should be in the future. To expect an Oxford style debate/interview over the course of a 10 minute segment is an unfair criticism of Stewart. While perhaps Cramer didn’t deserve all he got last night, he was the professional analyst/journalist at the table. He is the one who should be subscribing to the tenets of good journalism. More than likely CNBC or MSNBC could not have forseen, let alone prevented, the crises and meltdown of the US economy. However, perhaps we should have been hearing more stories from them. Why didn’t we hear more about Madoff when reports were being submitted about his questionable practices to the SEC? Why didn’t they dig deeper into the questions of over-leveraged banks ? These are reasonable questions – and to be honest I’m sad that this discussion had to happen at Comedy Central, and not a major news network. At the very least, I applaud the folks at the Daily Show for not backing away from the fight, and Jim Cramer for taking on the challenge as well. My only hope is that this discussion leads many in the mainstream media to ask themselves if they are really fulfilling their role as the fourth estate
John Stewart is a layman, and I didn’t agree with every charge levied against CNBC and Cramer. They didn’t know this was going to happen, but they do fuel the fire of the lie of stock picking, market timing and subsequent market out performance. Cramer (and those like him) harm innumerable investors with their antics. Stewart was exactly right when he said that all of the hype and market manipulation exacerbated by Cramer and co, hurt long term investors and they especially hurt day traders who think that stock picking is a winner’s game.
How can anyone possibly defend Cramer after watching the video that he did on thestreet.com? He was basically confessing to market manipulation. The SEC ought to nail him and CNBC ought to fire him and every other “finance guru” that claims they know what the market is going to do. 2 years ago when I saw that video, I figured that would come back to bite him in a big way. I’m glad it did.
People who truly believe they can outperform the market in the long run need to have their heads examined and simply look at the scientific research of Eugene Fama, Ken French, Burton Malkiel, and David Booth. For a simple example look at Bill Miller’s 15 year record smashed to bits in one year. The hubris that goes along with stock picking is the worst enemy of investors. They make one right call and then they think they’ve got the market figured out. All of the talking heads only ensure that randomness will remain in the market.