| 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 
The interview got to the very crux of the issue. Entities such as CNBC, which make their MONEY by selling advertising to financial institutions acted as a cheerleader for the financial sector which poured millions into their own coffers.
Santelli, Cramer, Kudlow and others provided years of advice either oblivious to the technicals or fully cognisant of them, all the time selling advertising slots on their shows and touting access to the folks in power.
They knew, but telling the truth to the viewers would have meant turning on their advertisers and admitting to the failures of the system that made them rich.
I believe that is gross conflict of interest.
And why doesn’t CNBC President Mark Hoffman have an email address available for the public?
Stewart obviously hasn’t read enough.
Stewart was pretty clear on where he lays the blame: not with any one particular pundit, but with the entire “business media”, who passed themselves off as journalists but held themselves to absolutely no standard of journalism, in terms or either truth or ethics.
Political/current-event journalists aren’t regulatory agencies, but they are expected to do more than regurgitate information, and it simply isn’t tolerated for a journalist to unashamedly trumpet claims they know to be false. That’s the difference between journalism and propoganda.
Stewart explicitly avoided attacking Cramer for the state of business journalism, but did use clips to demonstrate:
1) CNBC held Cramer up as a trustworthy source of unbiases analysis.
2) Cramer did nothing but relay propoganda from Wall Street.
3) Cramer knew exactly how he was being used by Wall Street, but chose to go along with it anyway.
The trouble isn’t that Cramer did his job. The trouble is the network created such a job in the first place.
It’s not that CNBC is responsible for the meltdown, but they aren’t innocent. Jim Cramer touted his advice as sound (In Cramer We Trust), and coming from CNBC you’d think he would have some accountability for fact checking. Like Stewart said last night, they’re both snake oil salesmen, but at least one of them is honest about it.
After watching last night’s show, I have come to a sobering conclusion. The market is run by few, above the law tycoons, who do not play by the rules. Jim Cramer, who i respect dearly, went on the daily show, lied numerous times. Stewart proved it, with his clips. Jim Cramer seemed remorseful, however it makes you wonder who’s side is he on? He lied on the show, once he got caught he confessed half heartedly, tried to lie agian, and got caught yet again. Makes you wonder, will the wall street elite ever learn?
In simple terms it is not fair to the American public to be manipulated by naked short sellers. They do not have to play by the rules which individual investors have to follow. Imagine what would happen if you were to manipulate the market, you’d be thrown in jail for fraud. Yet these funds get away with it. It’s time to wake up, and look at the philosophy of the market.
Mind boggling how so many people still support Cramer. To those who do: He lied, it was proven, yet people still choose to defend him. Good luck with that, and your 401k.
I’m hitting up Slausson!
Call the waaaahmbulance. Individual investors shouldn’t try to beat the market with individual stocks anyway. Those who followed a meat-and-potatoes Vanguard strategy of just investing in the broad market and then getting more conservative as you age have come out of this just fine.
Why is this story getting so much play? Who cares that a comedy show decided not to be funny for a night? If anything, we should be outraged that a comedy show intentionally avoided being funny.
Although I enjoy Jon Stewart’s satire, he clearly brought a gun to a knife fight last night. I couldn’t help but feel a little sorry for Cramer. It was a thorough and relentless undressing that should have been reserved for broader, more systematic ills of society.
Why should all of our livelihoods be dependent on like 5% of the populations’ willingness to invest. What is to stop the majority from centering power around the middle of the country…so that the top 5% have to come to us?
CNBC is the tip of the iceberg. Jon might not have an advanced grasp on the economy, but who does? Most of the experts on TV are cheerleaders. The entire economics discipline is practically a fancy academic rationalization for why social relationships are structured the way they are in this country.
Money is power. Proximity to people with money shifts power. That must be called into question. Whatever we’ve gots to do to make the majority less dependent on the minority of the opulent, we should do.