Stewart Vs. Cramer

[kurtyordy]

The hulu video is about halfway down the page. Excellent interview. I am not usually a fan of Stewart, but he nailed this one.

Stewart vs. Cramer: Winner Take All - Yahoo! TV Blog

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[kurtyordy]

did anyone else watch this? What are your thoughts?

 

[CMCarlin]

I loved this. I've enjoyed the daily show in the past. Mostly just stewarts commentary and some of his interviews. Not much of a fan of the additional stuff the other comedians put up.

but this interview and all of the preceding commentaries during the week have made me enjoy watching jon much more.

 

[MJ DeMarco]

Kudos to Stewart, he interrogates Cramer like a *normal* reporter should.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[EasyMoney_in_NC]

I just watched it on the D.show's web site (uncensored), what a smack down he gave Cramer. You can tell Stewart is genuinely pissed during that interview by the way he won't let Cramer finish an answer and just continues "laying" into him (Cramer).
That was by far the best interview I think I've seen in a long time. He didn't hold back any questions or topics. He came just shy of calling the network and Cramer himself a criminal via their actions or lack there of........great job. I actually watch Cramer on a somewhat regular basis and try to keep tabs on what he predicts etc...

I happen to agree with Stewart's positions and wonder if it will change CNBC's programming style like it did after the big tech bubble. CNBC went from being "profit from it" to various much less subdued tag lines, disclaimers on everything and dropped the majority of their "analyst" interviews......the guys that would tout a stock only for it to tank just after.

Nice job Mr. Stewart! +++ speed x 100 to him

 

[MattThomas]

I think he (Stewart) brought forth a lot of good arguments that, while CNBC shouldn't be a regulator, they should investigate the market and trading practices (and manipulation) and warn investors, rather than fostering it.

I was also very impressed at his astuteness on the markets, even though he took the point of view as a "layman". He really knew what questions to ask and what statements to make. Hopefully this interview will in fact inspire some changes.

 

[camski]

I'm no fan of cramer but I think the "interview" was just a way for stewart to express his political views. I find it funny that he expresses how serious the financial stuff is and how it pisses him off. Politics is serious too but he treats it as comedy. I find some irony in the fact that the guy who has many viewers get their politcal news from his comedy show wants to berate the guy who's viewers get their stock advice from his show.

if this is considered too political please remove.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Icy]

I'm no fan of cramer but I think the "interview" was just a way for stewart to express his political views. I find it funny that he expresses how serious the financial stuff is and how it pisses him off. Politics is serious too but he treats it as comedy. I find some irony in the fact that the guy who has many viewers get their politcal news from his comedy show wants to berate the guy who's viewers get their stock advice from his show.

if this is considered too political please remove.

Camski in my opinion the difference is that Stewart is not advertising his show as a way to benefit people. It isn't their to really change people political values, and he doesn't (in a serious way) try to make people believe that doing a certain thing will benefit them. On the contrary though Cramer's show does advise people financially and tells people how to "make" money. This is what the show is based off of and to blantently tell lies is the problem behind this. Certainly finance and politics are both serious issues but a show that doesn't advise people what to believe shouldn't be compared to a show that advises people.

Again that's just my opinion.

 

[MJ DeMarco]

Stewart caps on "In Cramer We Trust" .... PWNED

 

[camski]

Camski in my opinion the difference is that Stewart is not advertising his show as a way to benefit people. It isn't their to really change people political values, and he doesn't (in a serious way) try to make people believe that doing a certain thing will benefit them. On the contrary though Cramer's show does advise people financially and tells people how to "make" money. This is what the show is based off of and to blantently tell lies is the problem behind this. Certainly finance and politics are both serious issues but a show that doesn't advise people what to believe shouldn't be compared to a show that advises people.

Again that's just my opinion.

Once again I am no fan of cramer and am not trying to defend him. It was stupid of him to go on stewarts show in the first place. It had no place to go but bad for him. But for Stewart to come off as what cramer does is so "bad" and "reprehensible" and is such a serious topic when his political stuff is "just comedy", I find very ironic.
Look cramer is no diiferent than stewart, they are both clowns on tv trying to entertain the masses, nothing more, nothing less. But for stewar to be appalled that cramers audience take him serious, when many of stewarts take his shows "content" serious is just funny to me. Stewart can take soundbites and make a joke about them that are funny but not "true" in their context, to shape a political view. The same way cramer can say buy RIG on one day and have it go up for two days staright and then tank and go down 10 days in a row. In a snapshot he was right and the stock went up. But in the overall context of the pick, was he? Icy you claim cramers show "advises"people and stewarts doesnt, I would have to disagree, stewarts show is advising that his political view is correct and other peoples are wrong or stupid. His intent IMO is to show that other peoples politcal view is so stupid that it is funny (haha) how stupid it is.
Your also claim that cramer's show or cnbc lies is the problem. Accepting that premise I still dont have a problem with cramers show or any other "stock picker". Look if I buy a stock based on cramers pick and it tanks, is that cramers fault or mine? My position is that it is my problem. I clicked on buy, he didnt! I made the decision to pull the trigger, he didnt. The fault is mine and mine alone. If I based my entire decision on a talking head in a box then I am at fault and deserve to lose my money.
My personal opinion is that stewart going after cramer has more to do with cramer applying blame to the current admin for the latest drop in the dow, moreso than his personal outrage at cramers stockpicking ability or "wall street greed". I believe that if cramer would have blamed bush for all this it never would have hit stewarts radar.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[JM86]

Woww Stewart got him bad. I think he's right and that there is a difference between their two shows. First of all, Cramer should know better than to report a CEOs comments about his own company as news. Especially when the CEO knows he's being interviewed by Jim Cramer and that the interview is going out to a large audience. The CEO would be stupid not to bend the truth a little to make his company seem better because his job security is tied so closely to the company's stock price. If Cramer reports these comments on his show he should give his opinion on whether or not the numbers and reports from the company and market match what the CEO said.

I also think there is a difference between the two shows. For one thing, Stewart's show is on Comedy Central right after South Park reruns. I've never seen the show try to imply that it is real news. He did seem to bash Bush a lot during his term (and I think Stewart himself is very liberal), but why wouldn't he? All of Bush's little screw-ups in speeches is perfect for that kind of show. I just can't see how anyone could take that show seriously for their news and if they do it's their own fault imo.

Cramer's show, on the other hand, is on CNBC which is supposed to be purely a news network for financial markets. His show comes across as financial advice that the average person can sit through without falling asleep. He doesnt show funny clips of a CEO slipping on the carpet after his speech to get laughs or any other jokes that would lead you to believe the show is just for comedy. Although he's got some bells and whistles on there that give the show a light hearted mood, the advice is meant to be taken seriously.

I also think Cramer should be more responsible because of who his audience is. People watch his show because he's a likeable, entertaining guy that reports on a boring subject. People want to know about the stock market, but other shows on the markets, the Wall Street Journal, etc. might use too much techinical language or just be too boring. So Mad Money means learning about the markets without being bored to death.

I also think the average person thinks people on Wall Street know enough about the stock market so they can make perfect stock picks every time and they think Cramer is one of them. That's not his fault, but I think he should take more responsibility in presenting information that is relevant.

That's my 2 cents anyway. I don't think Cramer is a criminal or anything but he should be more careful about what he says on his show. He made some bad decisions and deserved to get embarrased on TV like that

 

[Reefbreak]

Cramer's show, on the other hand, is on CNBC which is supposed to be purely a news network for financial markets.

Or is CNBC merely a shill for its sponsors like E-Trade, Fidelity, Vanguard, etc. ?

Not sure if I am allowed to suggest this :huh2:, but I've been reading some stuff by Mike Stathis at AVA Investment Analytics. He has some pretty interesting takes on how just how "objective" the shows on CNBC really are...