Jon Stewart is an Ass
Jon Stewart is an ass. That’s what he gets paid for. And if you think that watching him makes you smarter, you’re probably an ass, too – albeit an unpaid ass.
The web sites today are abuzz with the news that Jon Stewart “destroyed” CNBC’s Jim Cramer on The Daily Show. Jon Stewart, aping Bill O’Reilly, set aside his customary joking and became the “angry sanctimonious white man”, channeling populist outrage at financial “experts” and abusing a guest. All good fun, except that all of the coverage is lionizing Stewart for being “the only one who asks tough questions”, and anointing him as the chosen one to “save journalism”.
Of course, Cramer is a clown and a fraud, just like 99% of other financial “experts”. So I’m not defending Cramer. And I’m usually the first to quote South Park or The Simpsons to make some wise financial point. But here’s the thing:
- If it took a Jon Stewart show for you to realize that Cramer is a clown, you are not the sharpest pencil in the box, and you have no right to feel smug. Cramer’s “Mad Hatter” act, on a show titled “Mad Money” might have been a giveaway. Or … I don’t know … the fact that the ENTIRE WORLD ECONOMY HAS COLLAPSED, based on advice from people much smarter and “respectable” than Cramer. Everyone can see that the “experts” were frauds.
- I’ve heard several otherwise intelligent people cite the Stewart interview as proof of how smart they are; “see, that’s why I don’t watch CNBC!” (“I watch BBC, CNN, etc.”). That’s the effect that people like Jon Stewart or Bill O’Reilly have – they put others down to make you think you’re smart. If you think that Cramer being a clown proves that you are better off watching CNN, Bloomberg, or Jon Stewart for financial information, I pity you.
- Where was Jon Stewart in March 2008 when Harper’s predicted a bubble collapse? Where was Jon Stewart when Soros, Taleb, Roubini, and others were warning everyone of the risks and dangers? Oh, that’s right: he was “making fart noises and funny faces”. That’s understandable, given that “fart noises and funny faces” are Jon Stewart’s profession, but it is the height of hypocrisy for him to hold himself up as an expert now (when hindsight is 20/20) and excoriate others for not having seen it coming.
- WTF does Stewart hope to accomplish by picking on Cramer? That seems almost as effective as having Cramer pick on Stewart. What could be more farcical that two comedians fighting over journalistic integrity, when there are no journalists left? Since you were too busy watching Stewart’s asinine show, you probably didn’t see that The Washington Post laid off most of their business and finance reporters yesterday. Or that most news organizations have already cut the vast majority of their business and finance reporting. Did you know that all of the good business and finance reporting is now accessible only to a small fraction of the population who pay thousands of dollars a month for access? Probably not, since you’d rather convince yourself that you can get good news accompanied by “fart noises and funny faces”. Or that most of the large news bureaus in America will soon be bankrupt. NEWS IS BANKRUPT. Good luck finding journalistic integrity when there are no journalists.
- Poynter and Romanesko have been reporting on the decline of journalism for more than a decade (and linked from this blog for almost a decade). It’s funny that Jon Stewart only just now realized that journalism is at risk, after it’s too late to do anything about it. It’s funny that Jon Stewart’s boogey-man keeps changing – first it was Republicans corrupting journalism, now it’s bankers. By the time he figures out what is *really* killing journalism, it’ll definitely be too late. But maybe he doesn’t really care about saving journalism. Trust me, Jon Stewart is laughing *at* you, not *with* you. He can afford to buy accurate business and finance news, you can’t.
The only reason I can find for Jon Stewart’s increasingly O’Reilly-esque behavior is that Stewart has decided to run for governor of Minnesota. Finding examples of lapses of journalistic integrity is like shooting fish in a barrel, and will only get easier as journalism continues to collapse. Stewart can cherry pick random ex-post-facto anecdotes and make himself out to be “the only honest man America”.
March 14th, 2009 at 10:55 am
Wait a sec! I think you are accusing the wrong guy. Stewart never claimed to be a financial expert or even a journalist. So, IMO, the trouble is not with Stewart but with journalists and others including NYT and NPR.
March 14th, 2009 at 11:51 am
a) “but it is the height of hypocrisy for him to hold himself up as an expert now”
Do you have a citation for Jon Stewart making such a claim?
b) ‘make himself out to be “the only honest man America”’
Do you have a citation for Jon Stewart making such a claim? The only Google result for that phrase plus Jon Stewart is this page.
c) “It’s funny that Jon Stewart only just now realized that journalism is at risk”
Not even his Crossfire appearance counts? (Granted, that is only 2.5 years earlier, but it’s what I happen to know off the top of my head.) My reading of that appearance that central to any problem of journalism is journalists not engaging in journalism, regardless of any “bogeyman”.
d) “Where was Jon Stewart in March 2008 when Harper’s predicted a bubble collapse?”
On the March 19, 2008 episode John Hodgeman predicted a recession, but that did require use of a Time Helmet: http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=164520&title=economic-future
March 14th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
You’re listening to the hype. I saw Jon Stewart more as just pointing out the obvious (but not spoken of) truth of the matter, show’s like Cramer’s on cnbc helped to drive stock market transactions and helped to drive the economy into a ditch. And that it’s not a joke, wiping out millions of folks’ retirement accounts like Jon’s 75 year old mom. Retired people who suddenly lose 50% of their wealth don’t have many options, these are serious life and death issues. Cramer admitted he could have and should have done better. I thought it was great.
March 14th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
[...] Nice post taking a somewhat alternate view to the whole Stewart/Cramer thing: [...]
March 14th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
Interestingly, I thought I was the only one who did NOT laugh when John Stewart would pick on his guests.
I thought the whole “I only get my news from the Daily Show” was really getting old.
March 14th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
Maggie, what hype would that be? As far as I can tell, I am the only person in the world who has annointed Jon Stewart an ass for doing that interview.
March 14th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
@Anonymous: Blaming Cramer for being an entertainer like Stewart, when journalism is bankrupt, seems pretty hypocritical. I’m afraid that most people who watch Stewart’s show have absolutely no idea how bankrupt journalism is. That’s my point. Stewart is beating a dead horse to make himself look smart, and leaves his viewers with the impression that the horse is still alive.
March 15th, 2009 at 11:30 am
“The web sites today are abuzz with the news that Jon Stewart “destroyed” CNBC’s Jim Cramer on The Daily Show… ”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ That hype (above).
Jon Stewart didn’t “destroy” anyone. This particular show was not comedy. It was a serious discussion about a cable channel that promotes itself as a place where people can go to get information about the stock market to decide whether to buy or sell. Jon’s point was that folks who listened to these shows lost their money, and many of these peoples’ retirement nesteggs are destroyed, serious life and death issues.
Try watching the unedited version with ears wide open, no other thoughts running through your mind. You might see what I’m talking about.
Particularly interesting are the clips of Cramer describing how to make money as a hedgefund manager in a short position who then goes out and starts a rumor meant to cause the stock price to drop, via the access he has to mainstream media, when stock prices go down, the hedgefund manager makes money on the shorted stocks. This is stock market manipulation, and I thought this was against the law. I’ve seen this clip before, but never on CNN, NBC, CNBC, ABC, CBS, ETC. I’ve only seen it on various blogs. It’s nice that Stewart aired it, more people need to see this. So yes, Stewart has demonstrated that he asks tougher questions than so-called “journalists”.
What’s most disturbing is the possibility that this is how the game is played all the time, I wonder how many good companies have been destroyed by these manipulations, how many people lost jobs, retirement benefits, etc.
March 15th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Maggie; I have probably watched TDS more loyally than any of the people defending Stewart on this thread, and I *did* watch the whole episode.
In fact, he messed up that episode badly in a number of ways which I didn’t care to go into in this post. For example, he clearly advised his audience that “buy and hold” is a bad strategy. Stewart is not a financial advisor, and that bit of advice is extraordinarily bad when given as a blanket statement the way Stewart did. It was also shockingly hypocritical, given that he just roasted Cramer for doing the same thing.
On the other hand, I am not sure that you read my post before responding. Even if you read only the first paragraph, I put the word “destroyed” in quotes to make it clear that I didn’t agree with the hype that everyone else was falling for. You clearly seem to be a staunch believer that Stewart is doing a “good thing” ™, and you are welcome to that opinion. But your opinion seems to be absolutely in-line with all of the hype, and I seem to be the only person in the web who doesn’t buy that hype.
People regard Jon Stewart as an authority. Surveys taken during the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections showed that more people under 30 got their news about the election from Stewart than from anyone else. And obviously, he has influenced you — you are now convinced that Cramer is responsible for your mother losing her 401k, and you are enthusiastic about defending that belief on Internet comment boards. This is what is so dangerous about someone like Stewart (or Cramer).
The truth is, financial journalism has been bankrupt for some time, and that’s just the way it is. If Stewart were half as concerned about ethics as he claims to be, he would just put Taleb on his show and admit that things are completely broken. And he absolutely would *not* do what he did — which is to beat up some strawman and then dispense his own financial advice as if he has any expertise at all. Cramer is financially incompetent, but so is Stewart.
Stewart makes you think that the problem is one of a few corrupt journalists or institutions, and is mainly an ethical issue that can possibly be addressed by moralizing and “finding honest journalists”. He deceives you from recognizing that this is a deep systemic crisis caused by a fundamentally broken business model. This is the biggest problem of our age, and pretending that it’s some random ethics issue is to bury one’s head in the sand.
March 15th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
@Matthew:
a) If you bother to watch the show, he’s been running a series where he “educates” his audience about economics. And on this very episode, he crossed the line into offering financial advice — for example, saying that “buy and hold” is a bad strategy.
b) He made that quote when he announced that he is running for governor of Minnesota.
c) You’re grasping. He’s not even in the same league as a Goldberg or Limbaugh for pointing out media failings, and like them, he still acts as if it is mainly a matter of ethics. Considering that the free market is only willing to pay him to make fart noises, he should be a bit more understanding of why Cramer doesn’t do “real journalism”. Journalism has imploded, in case you didn’t notice — there are no jobs left doing “real journalism”. Jon Stewart *still* hasn’t come to grips with that fact.
d) This is really grasping. During that entire time when government officials were asking us to spend our way out of a potential recession, everyone was saying that “Fannie and Freddie are fine”, and the list goes on and on and on … Jon Stewart never once raised the alarm and pointed out that it was all a big lie. When people like Taleb were trying to raise the alarm, when did Stewart give them airing on his program? Oh, that’s right — NEVER. He only covers the topic after it is hopelessly old news, and after it’s too late to do anything about it.
He’s a fine entertainer, and I’m still a loyal watcher of TDS. But don’t expect me to agree with anyone who claims that his piece about the mess in financial reporting is timely or intelligent.
March 15th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
“fundamentally broken business model?” perhaps an abhorrently corrupt political/legal model; there is no shortage of business profits in this country, or the developed word. Access,… like you brought out is much different, but when only the financially secure are legally allowed to make great investments, what do expect? But I don’t see liberals complaining about that either, they seem to me far too busy kissing the socialist academics rear end.
March 15th, 2009 at 7:26 pm
@Jonathan: Check out this recent piece by Clay Shirky: http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2009/03/newspapers-and-thinking-the-unthinkable/.
There is no money in news anymore. The only news that people will pay for is financial news, and because only a tiny fraction of people will pay for financial news, this is priced out of the grasp of normal people now.
March 16th, 2009 at 5:08 am
Cramer was not attacked because he hosts Mad Money and is a showman and a nut. Had that been the case, Stewart would have had him on his show before. Stewart could also have Peter “The Dollar is Doomed” Schiff on his show and thrash him for suggesting the Euro or some other currency was going to dominate the Dollar.
Cramer was attacked on the show because he attacked President Obama. That’s it. That’s the whole point of the class clown act that Stewart put on. He’s a smirking attack dog for The One and this is just the beginning.
Criticize Obama at your own risk.
March 17th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
I’m disheartened as an American.
Rahm Emanuel is using the prestige of the office of the President of the United States in a blatant strategy to chill Rush Limbaugh’s free speech. If he were a judge, the conduct would be clearly unethical. Yet, the media covers the story with so much sympathy to Rahm that we are completely distracted from the long term consequences of creating a huge federal deficit and an unsustainable goverment.
Now, the news media outlets are simplifying the problem and blaming Cramer and his ilk as the scapegoats who created the financial mess.
All we need to do is find who to blame, and then the problem is solved, right? Right, if you are simple.
***Never mind that Rahm Emanuel was on the board of directors of Freddi Mac when they engaged in their massive frauds. Does anyone know what that means!?!*** How would you feel if the CEO of AIG became the commerce secretary? Having Rahm Emanuel as the President’s chief of staff is even more egregious! But let us focus on Cramer and Limbaugh because they should speak less.
And, I note that Obama will not even speak for 6 minutes without using a teleprompter. When he speaks, the words he says are empty yet comforting to the the simple. Anybody who disagrees with him is divisive. His presidency is just a continuation of what he does best… read propaganda speeches, read the polls, and grab for power.
Obama’s team has mastered the art of propaganda, but nobody sees it. The current lack of journalistic professionalism is very, very dangerous, IMO. A democracy cannot survive without a quality press corps and intelligent citizens.
And, while I blame biased journalists, I blame the consumers more. As you point out, journalists are just delivering the news that sells.
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:30 pm
@Honestas: Both parties are equally guilty. And, regarding your “hypothetical” of AIG becoming commerce secretary, that is pretty much exactly what happened. Listen to Taleb or Roubini, who I quoted in this post, or read this piece from today’s NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/22/opinion/22rich.html?_r=1
The liberal media are certainly getting fed up and asking the right questions. Read Paul Krugman, for example. But the big problem isn’t that journalists are often biased — it’s that there are no journalists left, since the business model is dead and nobody knows what will replace it. Society will have to live without journalism for a couple of decades.