Jon Stewart Ices Jim Cramer With Earnest Anger, Not Bombast
By Robert Schlesinger, Thomas Jefferson Street blog
If you haven't seen it, the Jon Stewart-Jim Cramer interview from Thursday night was actually worth the hype. You know there's something going on when the people weighing positively for Stewart afterward range from TPM and James Fallows, who compares Stewart to both Edward R. Murrow and David Frost (so who plays whom in "Stewart/Cramer"?) and even the non-political gang over at ProFootballTalk.com ("Speaking in a voice that at times was passionate and faintly cracking with emotion as he grilled Cramer, Stewart made the typically bombastic financial guru come off as a wiseguy trying to reason with the hitman who had been sent to whack him.")
Stewart is skilled at his chuck-and-duck shtick (being serious but then hiding behind being a comedian), but he's also flatly a skilled interviewer (and I'm not just saying that). Perhaps because he is able to hide behind the clown face, Stewart is able to, as Fallows points out, do the Frost thing and brutal questions but manage it without Matthews-esque bombast. (In fairness to Chris Matthews, his face-off against Ari Fleischer the other day was pretty riveting too.)
Anyway, after the jump you can find the first part of Stewart/Cramer as well as links to parts two and three.
On Facebook? You can keep up with Thomas Jefferson Street blog postings through Facebook's Networked Blogs.
- Read more by Robert Schlesinger.
- Read more from the Thomas Jefferson Street blog.
- Read more about Jon Stewart.
Tags: television | Jon Stewart
Tools: 
Share
|
| Comments (36) | Print
Reader Comments
@Joe of MD
"If you are not in a position to play the market, you should NOT be watching his show. It's that simple. Keep your money in low risk investments. "
What he was angered about wasn't Cramer's stock speculations, be they right or wrong.
What he was actually angry about was that the low-risk investments are hurt by the shady dealings of a lot of the high risks "traders", and experts like Cramer and other CNBC pundits knew about these kind of dealing, but chose not to bring them to light and or worst, possibly helping the these traders and CEOs perpetuated the myth for whatever gain.
Basically, there's the market the common laymen knows about, then there's the "other market". And CEOs, accountants, day-traders etc of this "other market" toy with low-long term investments for personal gain (via loopholes and rumor mongering and barely legal acts) that is one of the main cause of our current economic meltdown.
Stewart interview of Jim Cramer
Stewart handed Cramer his lunch. Cramer had no credibility to put on a fight after the third video clip. What is amazing is that CNBC is still airing the "In Cramer We Trust" ads, nearly a week after Cramer put his tail between his legs and repeatedly said, "you're right" and "I'm sorry." Did they hear Cramer's description of his show near the end of the interview ("an entertainment show about business")?
Joe of MD comments
True.
I agree with your comments, but it goes both ways.
I guess I am most surprised by Cramer not fighting back more.
He is a sharp guy and could have pointed out many aspects that show that Stwearts attack was not justified.
The main one being, that there many shows that take calls and provide advice for investors and folks looking to plan retirement, etc.
That is not Cramer's show and it's not his expertise.
He is a trader.
He doesn't tell viewers and callers how to safely adjust their portfolios. How much to put into Mutual Funds, Bonds, cash, their 401K's etc.
There are other shows for that.
Cramer tells his viewers his opinions on specific equities in the market. Corporations that might be worth a shot for an investor WILLING to take a short-term risk on that company's prospects.
Viewers that are in a POSITION financially to buy 200 or more shares of XYZ corporation and maybe see a 15% return in 6 months.
That is his demograph.
If you are not in a position to play the market, you should NOT be watching his show. It's that simple. Keep your money in low risk investments.
He makes that perfectly clear.
I just think it's unfortunate that Cramer was not more persistent in making that point.
advertisement
