I'll wait.
Okay.
You have to love CNBC's miscalculation. After the initial pummeling their network received, they attempted the classic full court press. Cramer's on Scarborough, The Today Show - hell, public access TV - acting all hurt and misunderstood.
You can practically track their counter-memes streaking across America:
- This is a "war" between Jon Stewart and Jim Cramer
- Jon Stewart is mean
- Jon Stewart cannot be taken seriously
- Jim Cramer is being big about this
Holy crap, were they wrong.
Stewart exposing Cramer as a hypocrite using videotape was merely an appetizer. Stewart tears into Cramer not because he's Jim Cramer, but because he's a representative sample of CNBC's business news.
That'd be the business news that not only managed to not cover the lead up to our current financial meltdown, but went out of their way to be Wall Street's bullsh!t bullhorn for the past few years.
Stewart's opening line after the first commercial break sums up the whole interview.
Stewart: Let me tell you why I think this whole thing has caused some attention. It's the gap between uh what CNBC advertises itself as, and what it is.And right there the CNBC PR folks turn to each other and start mouthing expletives.
Cramer tries all his charm, tries to act all Gosh, I made some bad calls, but at least I admit it - and Stewart doesn't bite.
Cramer lies to Stewart's face about not short selling. Then Stewart responds with tape of Cramer bragging about how he did short sell, how he encouraged everyone to do it, and basically asserting how manly he was for admitting it- but that he would never say it on TV.
....and cut to the Jim Cramer who has just seen that clip air on TV.
There's so much in there:
- Cramer in the studio making like every investor's defender: "I've been trying to rein in short selling, trying to expose what really happens..."
- Cramer in the clip trying to ingratiate himself with the financial crowd: I'm one of you, see? I play the same games you do.
- Cramer caught in a lie.
- Cramer realizing he's been caught; and
- Stewart's killer follow-up:
Stewart: I want the Jim Cramer on CNBC to protect me from [the Jim Cramer in that clip]It's an absolutely devastating moment. And you have to set it aside to get to the heart of the matter.
This is the beatdown so many CEOs never faced on CNBC in the years leading up to our current mess.
Screw Cramer. Cramer is merely CNBC's messenger boy. They sent him out because they thought they could make this about him, use his appeal to deflect our attention from the key point Stewart was making.
CNBC chose to be cheerleaders instead of journalists - and they'd rather you not focus on that.
I give no credit whatsoever to Cramer showing up. This was an attempt to continue the spin. I'm a good sport, see? Stewart took his scalp anyway and shot it back at the people who sent him.
I have no idea why it takes a satirist to expose ineptitude in financial news coverage, but the Daily Show just schooled an entire network.
A-freaking-men.
Late edit: added the link
5 comments:
That's the great thing about the Daily Show, they make no bones about what they are - a "fake" news show that pulls no punches. And that's why their authenticity/credibility meter is so much higher than most news networks who try to create one image with ads and promos, and do not deliver.
I think you're spot on that the CNBC PR folks are crapping themselves right now: "It's the gap between uh what CNBC advertises itself as, and what it is."
If who you are does not match up with who you say you are, your perceived authenticity goes out the window. And that's death for any organization whose product is supposed to be reporting reality and truth.
I was watching the show last night, and I couldn't help but imagine you 1,000 miles away, watching the same thing, planning the post I'd read in the morning. ;)
And, you're right - he's a hypocrite, he was vulnerable, and he (and his network) totally misjudged that the show would "play along." I can't help but think that he is just the most visible example of this sort of thinking, though ... I remember my tax law professor, every time there was a "borderline" legality question, he'd finish about every such discussion with something to the effect of "I guess I'd say try it, and see if you get away with it." I think that sums up the sort of thinking that got us to where we are today.
Would that we could get this kind of grilling of a political type before we head off to the next war.
While this certainly seems well aimed and necessary, perhaps Jon will get a taste for it and start grilling those that really deserve it. Blame CNBC for what you want, but this disaster and others are brought to us by politicians who either do not hear from constituents or ignore them for the moneyed interests. CNBC did not repeal Glass-Steagall, nor did they weaken SEC or advocate liar loans. Those were done by our public servants and their masters.
In the end the blame lies squarely with the politicians employers, the public. The rest seems just distraction.
I love to see this kind of grilling occur in regular news, for just that reason.
We need skeptics doing the news, not the current crop of lapdogs.
CNBC surely didn't pass the laws or make the trades that brought us to this - but they feed into the problem of an ill-informed electorate that makes it all possible.
You can get away with a lot in Washington, but having a media spotlight on you while you do it can make some actions a lot harder.
Agreed, we need a better media.
My point is that CNBC is only a symptom of, rather than the actual disease. A poorly educated, informed and perhaps worry constrained(and time constrained) public is the disease. This again points me to politicians and the people that employ them.
The spotlight seems to always be on DC, it's just that people cannot recognize Mr. Hankey when they see him, or perhaps we are just politically poojaded.
Floyd Norris has a very good article in the NY Times regarding 'mark to market', with very seemingly appropriate snark included. Our TARP money, hard at work.
Post a Comment