Mathpol Weighs In on Cramer vs. Stewart.

[mathpol]

Here is a post on E. J.’s precinct at the Washington Post, and my response.

“So, who's to blame for the financial mess we're in? Jon Stewart, the host of the Daily Show, called out CNBC, airing a viral video of a number of mistakes and overly rosy predictions made by the network as banks failed and the economy turned south. Jim Cramer, the host of "Mad Money," shot back at Stewart, and the two finally met on the Daily Show last night. As Howard Kurtz wrote, "Jon Stewart wasn't trying to be funny. Jim Cramer wasn't trying to be obnoxious." As with Stewart's infamous Crossfire appearance (when he said "We need help from the media and they're hurting us"), Stewart's explicit goal was to criticize what he perceived as a failure of the media, with genuine anger and without satire. And Cramer sat and apologized. Did you watch the show? Do you think Stewart's right that CNBC is part of the problem? Or has his popularity gone to his head? Posted by Alex Remington “

Cramer seems to have forgotten that he did have a rant in, I believe, August of 2007 about the unfolding subprime crisis, and that people should "look out the window" and see what was going on. Stewart didn't play that clip. He brought down Crossfire, and now he's targeting CNBC. He got into this because he was irritated when Rick Santelli didn't appear on his show, cancelling at the last minute.

Bob Dole joked that the best place to get news these days is from comedy shows. A sorry state of affairs. I don't see why CNBC should be singled out.

Robert Samuelson, with his distorted and "ideological" columns, has done far more damage than Cramer could ever do. His column in the current Newsweek is a good example. But Stewart can't go after him, because that would take a lot of work and probably bore most people.

The real problem is not with the gang at CNBC, but with the "columnist kings" who can say whatever they want and are answerable to one. Another good example is Charles Krauthammer. (See the comment I posted about his March 6th column.) Michael Kinsley, on the other hand, always has sound arguments and doesn't screw with the facts.

[parasim]

1. Stewart didn't "get into it" because he was mad at Santelli for not showing up...

He was just doing what he always does and that's make fun of media figures making fools of themselves. He does this every night.

"Targeting" CNBC... ha! That's silly. He's not targeting anyone other than whatever talking head happens to be doing stupid things at any given time.

[Larkspur]

2. Stewart went after CNBC because Rick Santelli called ordinary Americans

losers for taking subprime loans that the banks were peddling. It was not because Santelli cancelled his appearance on his show. Santelli would have gotten the drubbing if he had shown up and rightly so. And Stewart wasn't just going after CNBC, he was using CNBC as an example of why the press has deceived us.

[mathpol]

3. Getting into it

I stand corrected. What I meant to say, but didn't, was that I thought his irritation was heightened by Santelli being a no show.

[Doctor_J]

4. I would love for Stewart to call out Krauthammer

That guy is the most morally bankrupt of the fishwrap pundits.