Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 46 to 60 of 60

Thread: Jim Cramer and Joe Scarborough whine about Jon Stewart kicking their asses

  1. #46
    Elite Member sparkly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Exchanging glances with the cunty bitches
    Posts
    14,422

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AliceInWonderland View Post
    yeah, who stole from who though? what does a talking head have to do with it

    i dunno, i just dont see the hype. the guys a clown, yeah big deal. he's just a 3rd party w/ no real involvement imo
    He was spouting off financial info to people that he knew was nothing but lies, causing them to lose their money, and in some cases, I'm sure it was a lot.
    Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege.

  2. #47
    Elite Member Fluffy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    5,600

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AliceInWonderland View Post
    yeah but what do you "win" for placing blame? what was the point of that interview/argument really? i dont see what the hell was accomplished by two t.v. personalities sniping at each other.
    Quote Originally Posted by AliceInWonderland View Post
    yeah, who stole from who though? what does a talking head have to do with it

    i dunno, i just dont see the hype. the guys a clown, yeah big deal. he's just a 3rd party w/ no real involvement imo
    Right, god forbid that the news media actually do their job and report what's happening accurately.

    Friday March 13, 2009 08:09 EDT
    There's nothing unique about Jim Cramer

    Jon Stewart is being widely celebrated today and Jim Cramer/CNBC widely mocked -- both rightfully so -- for Stewart's devastatingly adversarial interview of Cramer (who, just by the way, is a Marty Peretz creation). If you haven't yet seen the interview, you can and should watch it here; if you watch only one segment, watch the middle one and the beginning of the third.

    Stewart focuses on the role Cramer and CNBC played in mindlessly disseminating and uncritically amplifying the false claims from the CEOs and banks which spawned the financial crisis with their blatantly untoward and often illegal practices. Here is the crux of Stewart's critique of Cramer/CNBC:
    STEWART: This thing was 10 years in the making . . . . The idea that you could have on the guys from Bear Stearns and Merrill Lynch and guys that had leveraged 35-1 and then blame mortgage holders, that's insane. . . .
    CRAMER: I always wish that people would come in and swear themselves in before they come on the show. I had a lot of CEOs lie to me on the show. It's very painful. I don't have subpoena power. . . .
    STEWART: You knew what the banks were doing and were touting it for months and months. The entire network was.
    CRAMER: But Dick Fuld, who ran Lehman Brothers, called me in - he called me in when the stock was at 40 -- because I was saying: "look, I thought the stock was wrong, thought it was in the wrong place" - he brings me in and lies to me, lies to me, lies to me.
    STEWART [feigning shock]: The CEO of a company lied to you?
    CRAMER: Shocking.
    STEWART: But isn't that financial reporting? What do you think is the role of CNBC? . . . .
    CRAMER: I didn't think that Bear Stearns would evaporate overnight. I knew the people who ran it. I thought they were honest. That was my mistake. I really did. I thought they were honest. Did I get taken in because I knew them before? Maybe, to some degree. . . .
    It's difficult to have a reporter say: "I just came from an interview with Hank Paulson and he lied his darn-fool head off." It's difficult. I think it challenges the boundaries.
    STEWART: But what is the responsibility of the people who cover Wall Street? . . . . I'm under the assumption, and maybe this is purely ridiculous, but I'm under the assumption that you don't just take their word at face value. That you actually then go around and try to figure it out (applause).
    That's the heart of the (completely justifiable) attack on Cramer and CNBC by Stewart. They would continuously put scheming CEOs on their shows, conduct completely uncritical "interviews" and allow them to spout wholesale falsehoods. And now that they're being called upon to explain why they did this, their excuse is: Well, we were lied to. What could we have done? And the obvious answer, which Stewart repeatedly expressed, is that people who claim to be "reporters" are obligated not only to provide a forum for powerful people to make claims, but also to then investigate those claims and then to inform the public if the claims are true. That's about as basic as it gets.

    Today, everyone -- including media stars everywhere -- is going to take Stewart's side and all join in the easy mockery of Cramer and CNBC, as though what Stewart is saying is so self-evidently true and what Cramer/CNBC did is so self-evidently wrong. But there's absolutely nothing about Cramer that is unique when it comes to our press corps. The behavior that Jon Stewart so expertly dissected last night is exactly what our press corps in general does -- and, when compelled to do so, they say so and are proud of it.

    At least give credit to Cramer for facing his critics and addressing (and even acknowledging the validity of) the criticisms. By stark contrast, most of our major media stars simply ignore all criticisms of their corrupt behavior and literally suppress it (even if the criticisms appear as major, lengthy front-page exposés in The New York Times).

    Perhaps the most egregious instance of this media cowardice is that there are very few occasions when media stars were willing to address criticisms of their behavior in the run-up to the war. With very few exceptions, they have systematically ignored the criticisms that have been voiced from many sources about the CNBC-like role they played in the dissemination of pre-Iraq-War and other key Bush falsehoods. But on those very few occasions when they were forced to address these issues, their responses demonstrate that they said and did exactly what we're all going to spend today mocking and deriding Cramer and CNBC for having done -- and they continue, to this day, to do that.

    One of the very few television programs ever to address the media's complicit dissemination of Bush's pre-war falsehoods was Bill Moyers' superb 2007 PBS documentary, Buying the War. While most of the media propagandists whom Moyers wanted to interview cowardly refused to answer questions, Tim Russert, to his credit, did appear. Here are the excuses which Russert offered for the general role the media played in spreading Bush administration lies and the specific role Russert played in uncritically amplifying Dick Cheney's assertions about Saddam's nuclear program. I challenge anyone to identify any differences between what Cramer/CNBC did and the justifying excuses Russert offered:
    BILL MOYERS: Quoting anonymous administration officials, the Times reported that Saddam Hussein had launched a worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb using specially designed aluminum tubes.
    And there on Meet the Press that same morning was Vice President Cheney:
    DICK CHENEY (MEET THE PRESS NBC 9/8/02): … Tubes. There's a story in the NEW YORK TIMES this morning, this is-- and I want to attribute this to the TIMES. I don't want to talk about obviously specific intelligence sources, but--
    JONATHAN LANDAY, MC CLATCHYS: Now, ordinarily information like the aluminum tubes wouldn't appear. It was top secret intelligence, and the Vice President and the National Security Advisor would not be allowed to talk about this on the Sunday talk shows. But, it appeared that morning in the NEW YORK TIMES and, therefore, they were able to talk about it.
    DICK CHENEY (MEET THE PRESS NBC 9/8/02): It's now public that, in fact, he has been seeking to acquire and we have been able to intercept to 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.
    BILL MOYERS: Did you see that performance?
    BOB SIMON, CBS: I did.
    BILL MOYERS: What did you think?
    BOB SIMON: I thought it was remarkable.
    BILL MOYERS: Why?
    BOB SIMON: Remarkable. You leak a story, and then you quote the story. I mean, that's a remarkable thing to do. . . .
    TIM RUSSERT (MEET THE PRESS), TO CHENEY: What specifically has [Saddam] obtained that you believe will enhance his nuclear development program?
    BILL MOYERS: Was it just a coincidence in your mind that Cheney came on your show and others went on the other Sunday shows, the very morning that that story appeared?
    TIM RUSSERT: I don't know. The NEW YORK TIMES is a better judge of that than I am.
    BILL MOYERS: No one tipped you that it was going to happen?
    TIM RUSSERT: No, no. I mean-
    BILL MOYERS: The Cheney office didn't leak to you that there's gonna be a big story?
    TIM RUSSERT: No. No. I mean, I don't have the-- This is, you know-- on MEET THE PRESS, people come on and there are no ground rules. We can ask any question we want. I did not know about the aluminum tubes story until I read it in the NEW YORK TIMES.
    BILL MOYERS: Critics point to September Eight, 2002 and to your show in particular, as the classic case of how the press and the government became inseparable. Someone in the Administration plants a dramatic story in the NEW YORK TIMES. And then the Vice President comes on your show and points to the NEW YORK TIMES. It's a circular, self-confirming leak.
    TIM RUSSERT: I don't know how Judith Miller and Michael Gordon reported that story, who their sources were. It was a front-page story of the NEW YORK TIMES. When Secretary Rice and Vice President Cheney and others came up that Sunday morning on all the Sunday shows, they did exactly that.
    My concern was, is that there were concerns expressed by other government officials. And to this day, I wish my phone had rung, or I had access to them.
    BILL MOYERS: Bob Simon didn't wait for the phone to ring.
    BILL MOYERS: You said a moment ago when we started talking to people who knew about aluminum tubes. What people-who were you talking to?
    BOB SIMON: We were talking to people - to scientists - to scientists and to researchers, and to people who had been investigating Iraq from the start.
    BILL MOYERS: Would these people have been available to any reporter who called or were they exclusive sources for 60 MINUTES?
    BOB SIMON: No, I think that many of them would have been available to any reporter who called.
    BILL MOYERS: And you just picked up the phone?
    BOB SIMON: Just picked up the phone.
    BILL MOYERS: Talked to them?
    BOB SIMON: Talked to them and then went down with the cameras. . . .
    WALTER PINCUS: More and more, in the media, become, I think, common carriers of Administration statements, and critics of the Administration. And we've sort of given up being independent on our own.
    Compare Russert's self-defense to how and why he uncritically amplified Government lies ("I wish my phone had rung") to Cramer's pretense of victimization over the fact that CEOs lied to him and so there was nothing he could do but assume they were telling the truth ("I don't have subpoena power"). Stewart's primary criticism of Cramer applies with exactly equal force to the excuse offered by Tim "Wish My Phone Had Rung" Russert, who -- to this day -- is held up as the supposed Beacon of Tough Adversarial Journalism in America:
    I'm under the assumption that you don't just take their word at face value. That you actually then go around and try to figure it out.
    The point that can't be emphasized enough is that this isn't a matter of past history. Unlike Cramer -- who at least admitted fault last night and said he was "chastized" -- most establishment journalists won't acknowledge that there was anything wrong with the behavior of the press corps during the Bush years. The most they'll acknowledge is that it was confined to a couple of bad apples -- The Judy Miller Defense. But the Cramer-like journalistic behavior during that period that was so widespread and did so much damage is behavior that our press corps, to this day, believes is proper and justified.

    The only other occasion when media stars were forced to address these criticisms was when Bush's own Press Secretary, Scott McClellan, wrote a book accusing the American media of being "too deferential" to the administration. In response, Russert's replacement, David Gregory, twice insisted that the criticisms directed at the press for the role they played in the run-up to the war are baseless and misguided -- most recently in an interview with Stephen Colbert (after defending the media's pre-war behavior, Gregory was promoted by NBC to his Meet the Press position). When defending the media's behavior, Gregory echoed exactly the defining mentality of Jim Cramer: pointing out when officials are lying is "not our role," said Gregory.

    During that same time period, two of the three network news anchors (with Katie Couric dissenting) defended the media's pre-war behavior as well. In fact, this is what ABC's Charlie Gibson said -- echoing the Cramer view of journalism -- after Couric argued that the media failed to do its job in scrutinizing pre-war Bush claims:
    It was just a drumbeat of support from the administration. And it is not our job to debate them; it's our job to ask the questions.
    Identically, The Washington Post's David Ignatius actually praised the media's failure to object to pre-war Bush lies as a reflection of what Ignatius said is the media's supreme "professionalism":
    In a sense, the media were victims of their own professionalism. Because there was little criticism of the war from prominent Democrats and foreign policy analysts, journalistic rules meant we shouldn't create a debate on our own. And because major news organizations knew the war was coming, we spent a lot of energy in the last three months before the war preparing to cover it.
    It's fine to praise Jon Stewart for the great interview he conducted and to mock and scoff at Jim Cramer and CNBC. That's absolutely warranted. But just as was true for Judy Miller (and her still-celebrated cohort, Michael Gordon), Jim Cramer isn't an aberration. What he did and the excuses he offered are ones that are embraced as gospel to this day by most of our establishment press corps, and to know that this is true, just look at what they do and say about their roles. But at least Cramer wants to appear to be contrite for the complicit role he played in disseminating incredibly destructive and false claims from the politically powerful. That stands in stark contrast to David Gregory, Charlie Gibson, Brian Williams, David Ignatius and most of their friends, who continue to be defiantly and pompously proud of the exact same role they play.

    There's nothing unique about Jim Cramer - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

  3. #48
    Elite Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,250

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AliceInWonderland View Post
    yeah but what do you "win" for placing blame? what was the point of that interview/argument really? i dont see what the hell was accomplished by two t.v. personalities sniping at each other.
    CNBC started the blame. CNBC's Rick Santelli was doing the full Howard Beele on people who defaulted on their mortages and how the government shouldn't be helping them out. Stewart showed how CNBC was partly responsible for raising people's expectations to unsustainable levels and then happy talking just prior to the economy going bust. It wasn't about Cramer personally, but Cramer took it in that way because he has a gigantic ego.

  4. #49
    Elite Member Little Wombat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,616

    Default

    ^ Absolutely agree with this article.

    Last night, I was saying to a friend that cable news has become nothing more than PR stories fed by whomever is releasing them. I don't see much difference anymore between the entertainment "journalists" who ask only the questions they're allowed to ask stars and regular journalists in their regular reporting. It's become all fluff.

    That's why The Daily Show suddenly became a news source back in the Bush administration. It was actually doing stuff the real journalists were doing. TDS was digging up clips of Condi Rice testifying before Congress in 2001 saying that the "containment" policies of Iraq, which had been in place for years, were working, and they would contrast it with the 2002 statements that Saddam was a threat.

    I mean, why wasn't the rest of the news media picking up on this? This information was on the public record. After 9/11, the news media concentrated too much on getting the latest out there - ticker tape and all - whether it was really worthy information or not. And that suddenly became their only role: simply trying to keep the public up-to-date on the latest press releases and events. No screening. No looking back at how it all fits in.

    And it's such a shame when it comes to these 24-hour news channels. They could sit there and dedicate hours to investigative reports, but they've effectively become entertainment channels. Their only goal is to get high ratings, regardless if it turns them into the journalistic equivalent of OK! magazine.
    "Oh! I've been looking for a red suede pump!"
    - Marie (Carrie Fisher), When Harry Met Sally

  5. #50
    Hit By Ban Bus! AliceInWonderland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    you already know.
    Posts
    44,442

    Default

    lol reporters never do their jobs anymore! they don't even do their own research or write their own scripts. its their producers and flunkies. they aren't real reporters, they're tv personalities, talking heads.

    its not their jobs to watch out for the us, just saying

  6. #51
    Elite Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,250

    Default

    Their only goal is to get high ratings, regardless if it turns them into the journalistic equivalent of OK! magazine.
    OK! might have a better track record.

  7. #52
    Elite Member Little Wombat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,616

    Default

    ^ Yeah, that was probably insulting to OK! magazine. Perhaps Kneepads magazine would've been a better analogy.
    "Oh! I've been looking for a red suede pump!"
    - Marie (Carrie Fisher), When Harry Met Sally

  8. #53
    Silver Member betagrl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    306

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AliceInWonderland View Post
    lol reporters never do their jobs anymore! they don't even do their own research or write their own scripts. its their producers and flunkies. they aren't real reporters, they're tv personalities, talking heads.

    its not their jobs to watch out for the us, just saying
    That's your opinion, but that hasn't been the long-held view of the role of journalism in a democracy.

    The news we get today is largely entertainment and not journalism because the news organizations are owned by multi-national organizations that typically favor Republican rule. Viacom, which owns Comedy Central, is not.

  9. #54
    Elite Member nana55's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    dreaming about being on a lake in Ontario
    Posts
    4,085

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by louiswinthorpe111 View Post
    Joe is bitter in this clip. Yammering on about how Stewart pics out clips and edits them. Oh, and that's not what MSNBC does, or Fox News? Everyone does that, I don't find that to be an exceptional excuse to become bitter.

    And just like you, Joe, Stewart has his own show and can talk about whatever he wants.
    Scarborough used to think Stewart was funny. Remember how disapointed he was when he came on his show and Scarborough just kept saying "but you were supposed to be funny". He used to love him. It's all fun and games until someone gets their feelings hurt, poor joe.
    If I can't be a good example, then let me be a horrible warning.

  10. #55
    Elite Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,808

    Default re

    That article from Salon quoted above reminds me of Stephen Colbert's infamous appearance at that press dinner. Not only did he expose the emperor (Bush) in his nakedness, he skewered the press who had become, in essence, nothing more than stenographers for the Bush administration.

    Journalists used to dig and ask the hard questions. (And yes, I agree that most of the people on the TV news shows have ceased to be journalists.)

    A show that reports on the investment business and is at the same time having sex with the investment business is not going to be very neutral, is it?

  11. #56
    Elite Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,250

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BBDSP View Post
    That article from Salon quoted above reminds me of Stephen Colbert's infamous appearance at that press dinner. Not only did he expose the emperor (Bush) in his nakedness, he skewered the press who had become, in essence, nothing more than stenographers for the Bush administration.
    Yes, good analogy. Colbert not just dug at the Bush administration, he also chastized the press "covering" the WH.

    Journalists used to dig and ask the hard questions. (And yes, I agree that most of the people on the TV news shows have ceased to be journalists.)

    A show that reports on the investment business and is at the same time having sex with the investment business is not going to be very neutral, is it?
    Yep, they used to ask the tough questions.

  12. #57
    Elite Member kingcap72's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    10 miles from Pootie Tang
    Posts
    21,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AliceInWonderland View Post
    lol reporters never do their jobs anymore! they don't even do their own research or write their own scripts. its their producers and flunkies. they aren't real reporters, they're tv personalities, talking heads.

    its not their jobs to watch out for the us, just saying
    Real journalists were considered society's watchdogs, keeping an eye out for the little guy against corrupt politicians and corporate greed. So, it used to be the job of journalists to watch out for us, and let us know what was going on.

    But now that most of the mainstream media are owned by massive conglomerates, and the CEOs are loyal to certain politicians, the media only looks out for the people the CEOs tell them to look out for. Which are primarily the politicians and corporations these days.

  13. #58
    Elite Member nana55's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    dreaming about being on a lake in Ontario
    Posts
    4,085

    Default

    There is a difference between a reporter who reports the news and journalists who should be out in the firld getting the answers to the questions we should be asking. Like Edward R. Murrow used to do.
    If I can't be a good example, then let me be a horrible warning.

  14. #59
    Hit By Ban Bus! AliceInWonderland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    you already know.
    Posts
    44,442

    Default

    im so glad i've been conservative with my $

  15. #60
    Elite Member bychance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    5,294

    Default

    He's mad that a comedian (and a comedy show) is serving better journalistic skills than your average regular news station.

    Quote Originally Posted by visitor42 View Post
    Yes, good analogy. Colbert not just dug at the Bush administration, he also chastized the press "covering" the WH.



    Yep, they used to ask the tough questions.
    But we call them 'gotcha' questions now.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 17
    Last Post: August 4th, 2008, 03:16 PM
  2. Madonna's been inserting things into the asses of actors
    By Grimmlok in forum Gossip Archive
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: September 2nd, 2007, 10:50 PM
  3. Jennifer Aniston goes on Oprah AGAIN to cry and whine
    By Nitelite in forum Gossip Archive
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: October 14th, 2006, 02:29 AM
  4. Replies: 46
    Last Post: March 6th, 2006, 05:52 PM
  5. Johnny Depp - Drugs are for dumb asses
    By SVZ in forum Gossip Archive
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: November 11th, 2005, 01:15 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •