I’ve been on a little bit of a Wall Street rant as of late (here and here). But I can’t help throwing out a couple more things, in case you somehow missed them. In recent weeks Jon Stewart, in his inimitable way, has been asking a truly important question: why did the business media completely and totally miss the Wall Street meltdown? Aren’t they supposed to be doing investigative reporting? Aren’t they supposed to be asking the hard questions, uncovering wrong-doing, and thereby informing and protecting the public? With all the resources at their disposal, how could they completely and totally miss the most profound economic event since the great depression? The truth, of course, is that the mainstream media coverage of Wall Street is a farce. It consists of interviews with CEOs and stock pickers, and advice and analysis that isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on (or the photons your TV/computer monitor emits). There are very few true business reporters out there (Gretchen Morgenson of the New York Times being my favorite).
The first must-see show consists of Jon Stewart doing a take-down of CNBC (a cable channel devoted solely to business). The show includes plenty of clips from CNBC “experts” (including Jim Cramer) making statements and stock-picking suggestions which turn out to be spectacularly wrong. It is truly brilliant and instructive:
|
|
A couple of weeks later Jim Cramer was a guest on The Daily Show With Jon Stewart, presumably to defend his (and CNBC’s) honor. It is simultaneously one of the most entertaining and disturbing interviews I’ve ever seen (though nothing compares to the Sarah Palin interviews). Jim Cramer is the host of a show on CNBC called Mad Money. The basic premise of the show is that Cramer, a former hedge fund manager, will “make you money” by telling you which stocks to buy or sell. The problem, of course, is that he has no idea what he’s doing (see here and here). This is not a stab at him particularly, since I believe that aside from a truly tiny set of individuals, none of these fund managers or traders has any clue, and for the most part they all do roughly average (within expected deviations depending on their assumed risk). But I digress. In the interview Jon Stewart completely dismantles Jim Cramer, showing him to be essentially a fraud. Or, more to the point, he is providing entertainment, not actual financial advice. It is an astounding admission, from one of the most watched financial advisors in the world. What we need is more investigative journalism, and less snake-oil salesmanship. Here is the interview:
|
|
March 30th, 2009 at 9:58 pm
This sequence was a pretty low blow and unfair. Cramer actually goes on air to give his stock picks and his record is public domain. By the very nature of the biz, he will be wrong a good percentage of the time. If he’s terrible, that means that his picks are at best 50-50, like flipping a coin. If he’s Warren Buffet oracle like, then he will be correct something like 60-40. That still means he’ll be wrong 40% of the time and people like Stewart will have 40% of air time to cherrypick.
I don’t think Cramer is that good, but then again, he isn’t terrible either and gives some sound advice into the nature of the business, which is why he’s still on the air and has a loyal following.
Stewart does venture into hot waters by making it seem like theres a weird conspiracy theory between CNBC and major financials, which of course is absurd.
Whats the old saying? ‘Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence’.
March 30th, 2009 at 10:33 pm
the new york times business section most notably ran an expose on the number (it was in the millions) of *evil* corporations that paid nothing in taxes. they then ran a corrections that acknowledged that the writers had no clue what and S Corp and essentially reduced the piece to a pile of crap
Jon Stewart is a comedian, a cut and past, edit the interview, intellectual lightweight comedian
and you Daniel are one of his stooge viewers, except that you’re about 3 weeks later on the interview
March 30th, 2009 at 11:18 pm
so angry man should we assume that you think Dennis Miller is an intellectual heavyweight?
e.
March 30th, 2009 at 11:28 pm
While all of what Jon Stewart said is true, I do have one problem with him. It’s easy for Jon Stewart to take down other people since he never puts himself on the line. Any time he is backed into a corner he resorts to “oh, I’m just a comedian and this is just a comedy show” thus avoiding any accountability.
One example is when Jon Stewart had John Kerry(presidential candidate) in 2004 on this program. The interview was roundly criticized because Jon Stewart only asked softball questions. He defended this by saying “oh, this is just a comedy show”. So, there are times when Jon Stewart acts like a douchebag…but he always gets away with it by hiding behind his excuse that it’s just a comedy show.
March 31st, 2009 at 12:10 am
Well, it is a comedy show. One of the funny, and sad, things is focus on hardball/mad money/rumsfeld/etc type situations. Remember what comedy is after all. It’s not just empty laughs.
Further, he’s right about the absurdity of CNBC. They give unreasoned (well not unreasoned – their reasons just aren’t always related to proper analysis, and for good reason) business advice and seem to not correctly or effectively do investigative reporting. Of course they should be criticized. Your complain is that Jon Stewart doesn’t do enough? Obviously you must have much greater complaints with news organizations?
March 31st, 2009 at 12:13 am
While true, the difference is that the people he’s attacking do claim to be experts. I don’t think your John Kerry example has any real relevance here.
March 31st, 2009 at 4:08 am
Umm, Cramer’s show is definitely entertainment first. Anyone who takes financial advice from some idiot with a blowhorn that throws stuff around the studio deserves what they get. Stewart (who I’m a big fan of, generally) always hides behind this “I’m just a comedian” line, which is a bit disingenuous, and I think his Cramer takedown was a bit unfair in that respect.
March 31st, 2009 at 5:13 am
Have the commenters here actually watched the clips? He clearly states at various points that he’s not criticizing Cramer for getting predictions wrong, he’s criticizing CNBC for selling him as some sort of business oracle (and for failing to hold CEOs to account).
As for saying he “hides behind the comedian line”, well, HE IS a comedian. The show is a comedy show and the only reason he’s strayed into serious critiques of politics, business and the media is because no-one else is doing it. If other journalists did their job, he could get on with funny faces and fart jokes, as he’s pointed out numerous numerous times.
March 31st, 2009 at 5:40 am
Oh good grief. They’re all comedians. Stewart is just the only one willing to admit it.
March 31st, 2009 at 6:16 am
Gimme a break! Stewart is playing his usual holier than thou routine. He is selectively tough on his guests. What about when the half a dozen Bush administration people were on his show-ari, colin, condi, john ashcroft. He interviewed them with kid gloves.
What nonsense. Cramer is a very smart and informed guy.
Where the hell was Jon stewart-he is calling these people out AFTER the fact. He didnt say or do anything to criticize CNBC before the fact.
this is a low blow for jon.
March 31st, 2009 at 6:25 am
I’m surprised how many people are bothered by the fact that Stewart “never puts himself on the line”, etc. What is either interesting or boring is the point Stewart is making in this case, and not his modus operandi: did CNBC sell Cramer as an oracle and not entertainment, and did the largest business and financial reporting operation in the world miss the largest economic catastrophe of our time through sheer incompetence, and a lack of true business reporting? It’s a very good question, and THAT is what should be debated. Who raises the question has absolutely no bearing on the question itself.
March 31st, 2009 at 7:24 am
“Anyone who takes financial advice from some idiot with a blowhorn that throws stuff around the studio deserves what they get.”
Except that they announce his show with “In Cramer We Trust”. You are slamming the victims of a con man, rather than the con man himself.
The only thing that can be construed as unfair is that Cramer was taking the brunt for all of the business networks, who systematically failed to ask the hard questions to business CEOs in order to secure future interviews (there’s your “weird conspiracy”). Nonetheless, given the clips with Cramer’s confessions to illegal activities, I do not feel so bad for the man. In fact, I hope he’ll be prosecuted for it.
March 31st, 2009 at 8:07 am
It’s pretty naive to think that the Daily show is “just” a comedy show. It is a political show which uses humor as a tool to point out the hypocrisy in politics and the media. If you don’t “get” that then you miss the whole point of the Daily Show.
If you think the Daily Show is “just” a comedy show then don’t take his criticism of “finanical reporting” too seriously…hey, it’s just comedy after all! You can’t have it both ways and that is the point. If Jon Stewart is going to take on serious topics then you cannot hide behind the excuse of being a comedian.
btw, I really enjoy the Daily Show and watch it regularly. But this is one aspect of Jon Stewart bothers me. When he acts like a douchebag he should own up to it.
March 31st, 2009 at 8:43 am
I feel like this has nothing to do with Jon or Cramer. This about CNBC claiming that Madoff’s farts smelled like roses, when in reality some of them had a clue that something was fishy was going on behind the scenes. Real journalists would have drilled the execs — instead, CNBC brings them on the show and asks hard-hitting questions like “does it feel good to be a billionaire?”. Then they have the AUDACITY to claim that they are the “leaders” in financial and business news.
If ANYONE should have caught a whiff of foul play and tried to get to the bottom of it before it brought down our economy, you would think it would be the team of journalists completely dedicated to Wall Street and finance. But, no… instead the showed us that they’re nothing more than a bunch of tools, and THAT is what Jon was trying to point out.
March 31st, 2009 at 9:27 am
BUT HE IS A COMEDIAN.
Accountability to whom, exactly? Criticizing him for not knowing better himself is rubbish. He’s not the one who is making claims of expert analysis and due diligence. No one looks to Stewart for financial advice. That’s his point. Most of the time he is all about entertainment, and he continues to remind people of this because they SHOULD take what he says with the knowledge that he’s just trying to get a laugh. Whether he owns up to douchebaggery or not wouldn’t change the issue in the slightest, and your criticism is irrelevant. Everyone I know has an opinion about politics. Only a handful are actual politicians. It doesn’t invalidate what they have to say.
It doesn’t matter that he won’t play hardball with every guest. And it doesn’t change the criticisms he’s made. His point is still valid. And unlike a financial news organization proffering up advice for individuals to make life-altering decisions, the questions he asks (or doesn’t ask) aren’t putting people at risk. He’s allowed to ask them. Somebody should.
March 31st, 2009 at 10:22 am
Eo, so you think that CNBC would sit on a story about Madoff’s ponzi scheme? May I ask
1) Why would they do that?
2) What benefit would it bring them relative to the converse?
3) What makes you so sure they had sufficient evidence to avoid a libel suit (you know, the thing real journalists worry about when breaking a story).
March 31st, 2009 at 10:27 am
wow, can’t believe how many of you are clueless about the point of the daily show. Comedy and humor is a “medium” that he uses to take on serious topics in politics and media. When he accuses CNBC of asking CEOs “softball questions”, he is also guilty of the same. Look at all the interviews he has done. with John Kerry, Condi, etc.
He may use comedy as a medium but he is a serious political commentator…get with it. geez!
March 31st, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Jerry, just because the bulk of one’s show is soft-ball and comedy does not mean you give up the right to ask a good question. If Jon’s point about CNBC is invalid, that is a separate issue from whether he raises good points EVERY night or just on some nights.
March 31st, 2009 at 2:01 pm
Couple of points, first: Thx Dan, for posting this, i was def. impressed when i first saw the clips.
Second: yes, it’s true that Stewart does this all from a comedic perspective generally — and yet, has been for many years at times the *ONLY* voice of reason on the airwaves. it’s a very impressive track record, particularly the times he *is* serious, or semi-serious (cf. the clip of his takedown of Tucker Carlson on Hardball, which got Hardball cancelled soon after (paraphrase: “you’re just as much of a dick on your show as anywhere else”) as well as his the emotion he shows after Obama was actually elected, *and* his show just after 9/11).
He now finally has real competition with the impressive voice of Rachel Maddow out there — sharp, incisive, funny, witty, and very real, and also Olbermann to a degree (though he is not as universally liked).
Last — the most impressive and honestly to me memorable part of this clip with Cramer is something i think almost everyone passes over and barely notices, in all the brouhaha: when Stewart says how about we get back to make an honest living instead of just trying to get rich quick by gambling on Wall Street? it’s so *fundamental*, so much a part to me of what “American values” are supposed to be… and yet, just so very glossed over in our culture, so much, these a’ days.
March 31st, 2009 at 4:05 pm
I agree with Jon Stewart and his criticism of CNBC. So, quit whining on that point. I’m simply pointing out that he is also guilty of some of the same things like softball interviews. There is a little bit of hypocrisy here and it should be acknowledged. That’s all. Pretty simple really.
March 31st, 2009 at 9:55 pm
the difference being that CNBC claims to get you the business truth. the daily show runs on comedy central. if he wants to field softball questions, there’s no conflict of interest there. however there IS a conflict of interest from an organization that CLAIMS to give you news but instead panders to the CEOs.
there is hypocrisy although perhaps you should qualify where it is. if you think what the daily show and jon stewart are doing gives them license to do whatever they want, it’s because they do have license. they’re doing satire. they’re not trying to sell news.
March 31st, 2009 at 10:20 pm
that is the genius of Jon Stewart…that he has his show on “comedy central” and claims it’s only satire. In this way he avoids any accountability and yet reserves the right to give a good solid grilling to guest like Cramer of CNBC (deservedly in this case) and chicken out on interviews with guests like Bush,Kerry, etc. It’s easy to grill a guest like Cramer who is obviously in the wrong and most of the world is furious with him…it’s easy to pile on. But it’s more difficult to take on politicians especially at the height of their popularity.
Imagine for a moment if Rush Limbaugh moved his show to comedy central and just had some comedians make a periodic appearance to claim it’s just harmless satire. That is essentially what Jon Stewart has done…but fortunately I think he is the good guy in this case. Fox news has already tried a daily show format called “1/2 hour news show” so that they can spew their agenda and hide behind the “satire and comedy” defense…it got cancelled because of low ratings…but they plan to try again.
One can be a fan of Jon Stewart and still be able to criticize him when needed.
April 1st, 2009 at 2:37 am
Jon Stewart is playing the traditional role of the “court jester”: He can say anything he wants because it’s all in fun – and sometimes the jester can point out things that anyone else would get in trouble for saying.
April 1st, 2009 at 6:40 am
Financial reporting is entertainment perhaps, but financial theory from conservatives is truly damaging. One of their pet projects has long been to reduce capital gains taxes – and they succeeded. I think those lower CG rates stimulated the bubble and the shifting of effort into financial manipulation instead of real production. The alleged benefit of low CG tax was a fraud all along, since only true capital flow for start-up or direct financing really gives money to business, the rest is trading between gamblers. One solution is to tax all income types at the same rate schedule, apart from the issue of brackets according to income level. But, use indexing as a fair measure of prior cost.
However, we need to stimulate employment directly instead of the phony propping up of financial manipulation. I have long argued, let’s try changing the tax code to apply a multiplier (e.g. 1.2X) to all or some of the cost of employment for deduction in corporate taxation. (Maybe not that simple, but along those lines.) Then raise the base corporate tax on the adjusted net profit to be roughly revenue-neutral on average, so: companies that hire workers and/or pay them more are rewarded versus those that try to save money.
April 1st, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Thank you so much for posting this? I don’t watch the daily show anymore.. but this stuff is just incredible. Even better than his takedown of crossfire (or whatever show that was).
John Stewart should get a medal for having the balls to do stuff like this.
April 1st, 2009 at 2:24 pm
oops, meant a !, not a ?
April 5th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
@ uncle sam
“I think those lower CG rates stimulated the bubble and the shifting of effort into financial manipulation instead of real production.”
So you think its role of fiscal policy to control asset prices? Incorrect, monetary policy is (ie control of the money supply .. remember, inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon
Lower CG rates are good, they promote investment into one of the key ways companies can finance themselves, issuing stock.
As for lowering the cost of employment to employers, how about lowering or even removing payroll taxes?