Stewart vs. Cramer: In defense of CNBC

Full video of Jon Stewart's Thursday night interview with Jim Cramer here. 

Until Jon Stewart targeted CNBC's tribe of glib business news personalities, Comedy Central's "The Daily Show" didn't seem to know quite what to do with itself in the Barack Obama era.

The show's attempts to mock the president's first 100 days seemed half-hearted. Going after the Great Democratic Hope right out of the gate didn't much appeal to "The Daily Show" audience. And with our nation's economy imploding, attacking Obama felt like mocking a doctor working in a battlefield trauma ward.

Then Stewart had his magnificent eight-minute-plus rant against CNBC last week. You could feel his anger. The segment was hilarious. More than that, it was cathartic. Viewers loved it. Comedy Central's online division had its best week ever, with the anti-CNBC clip getting 1.3 million views.

CNBC's "Mad Money" showman Jim Cramer took the bait and returned fire, and the story went supernova -- Stewart vs. Cramer! Suddenly, "The Daily Show" had its new George W. Bush, with each new volley becoming an online sensation as Stewart devastatingly skewered the news network for its every boneheaded Wall Street forecast.

Except ... except ....

It's not CNBC's fault.

The financial crisis. The big thing fueling all this. Stewart could make a case for responsibility with Bush -- he was the leader of the country, the decider.

But it's not thanks to CNBC that viewers are losing their homes. It's not Jim Cramer's fault that a staggering percentage of the world's wealth has vanished. The network's on-air talent are struggling to understand and predict the worst economy in our lifetime, they don't control it.

When Stewart jokes that by rallying viewers against CNBC he's engaging in the same "cheap populism" as Rick Santelli, he's telling the truth. Cable network reporters filling hours of air time make mistakes and sometimes say idiotic and sycophantic things, it's routine "Daily Show" fodder, and one shouldn't expect CNBC's staff to somehow be immune. And when you have Warren Buffett saying "buy-buy-buy" in November, it's no surprise the likes of Cramer and Santelli couldn't crystal ball what would happened next.

And since when is CNBC considered such a powerhouse of influence, anyway?

Until recently, the only joke anybody made at CNBC's expense was how few people watched the network. Though its ratings have swelled during the economic crisis and dwarf chief competitors Bloomberg and Fox Business Network, the channel only averages 300,000 viewers at any given time. To watch Stewart, one would think the modest basic cable network single-handedly led millions of American families to financial ruin. Whatever real-world culpability the network has in this crisis, it's infinitesimal.

As for Cramer, his Top 40-stock market-DJ-circus act deserves every arrow you want to fire at it. But the silliness of "Mad Money" is a pretty big clue as to how any adult with a brokerage account should view the show. A person losing their 401(k) due to Cramer's advice is like somebody who e-mails their bank account number to that Nigerian prince who needs their help.

On Thursday's "Daily Show," Stewart hammered Cramer until the "Mad Money" host was utterly defeated and hanging his head. To somebody just tuning into this drama, they would have thought Jim Cramer was Bernie Madoff.

"I understand that you want to make finance entertaining," Stewart said, in a devastating line, "but it's not a f**king game."

CNBC and their reporters are the low-hanging fruit, easy economic crisis targets. The true villians are not producing mockable video on a daily basis, and are presumably unwilling to be interviewed on "The Daily Show." Stewart ridiculing the cable network is no sin -- it's terrific theater. But the absolute hurricane of  animosity being channeled toward CNBC and Cramer this past week feels a bit like a witch hunt; stringing up a clumsy messenger just because he's there.

...

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

CNBC Gives Financial Advice

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things With Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Economic Crisis

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

In Cramer We Trust

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things With Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Economic Crisis

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Basic Cable Personality Clash Skirmish '09

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things With Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Economic Crisis

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Jim Cramer Battle

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things With Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Economic Crisis

Comments

[Myke]

Refreshing take on the story. I watch both Mad Money and The Daily Show, both for the entertainment, rather than their financial or political, value. So when I first saw the Daily Show segment, I felt it was a bit opportunistic (if not deserved in light of the Santelli snub). Still, I look forward to watching the show in its entirety tonight

[Hamster]

Shockingly, Stewart and Colbert turned their "satire" on a dime on 1-20-09 from attacking the outgoing President to attacking the new guy's critics.

Truth to power, Indeed!

[SquawkBoxter]

I've been watching CNBC for 10 years. I have a fondness for the Squawk Box crew, Cramer, and the Money Honey...but lately their true colors have been showing.

Bartiromo on Morning Joe confusing personal taxable income with small business revenues and sounding like a real jackass. Kudlow clinging to his religion like a flat earther. Kernan doubting global warming. All the snark and blame and shitty attitude re: Obama from people like Cabrera -- who has become so crabby and rude I can barely stand to listen to her.

I had to admit to myself that I watch for entertainment. "American Greed" is good. Faber is good. Mark Haynes I trust. Burnett is likable. But I don't learn anything anymore from CNBC. And I don't trust them any more. I think they are free market zealots, liars, partisans, in too tight with big money, the WSJ and the GOP. These are probably the smartest people on cable TV...what a waste.

It's too bad. Ironically, Cramer is the only one I would expect to actually take a hard look at himself and maybe try some changes. The rest will make excuses, tell Stewart to piss off and go on with the show as usual.

[Scott Anodam]

Great post SquawkBoxter, I concur; Michelle Cabrera is an unwatchable, strident, republican mouthpiece and so bitchy it's a wonder she's not been given a show on Fux noise.
I'd add that after Santelli's ridiculous, immature, disrespectful and simplistic/stupid rant heard round the world- he then followed it up w/ almost psychotic paranoia? Even (almost) better than Stewart's great skits was Matt Lauer calling Rick on his BS saying "c'mon Rick, no one threatened you, you know that?" So Santelli then on live TV blames his wife as the one that thought Gibbs was threatening her...so add crazy to the list!!

[TB]

Why does CNBC need defense? Stewart summed it up really well when he said that they have an oppurtunity to be very helpful to the American people, but instead assist the market in selling the idea of what the market is as opposed to reality. Cramer ran a hedge fund, and in the interview Stewart sighted he showed his vast knowledge of the shady backroom dealings that go on, on Wallstreet. No one else is there to call them on their (*&^, so it is left to comedy shows. Any network who sells themselves as experts who should be trusted should be exposed for how often they are wrong, and that they are omitting very important facts from their reporting. All that in combinatoin with haveing Rick Santelli on a network that has been so wrong so often dub people losing their houses as losers, and you defend them? The unemployment rate is the highest it has been in 20+ years, and people are losing their homes because of an extremely flawed financial market that they were told by amoung many other Rick Santelli, and they are the losers? CNBC should have fired him seconds after he said that. Then you compare Stewart to Rick Santelli? Seriously, John Stewart is much more intelligent than Santelli. You should go back and watch this interview again because I believe you have misssed the point. People at CNBC knew what was really going on, and did not report it.

Hamster - First off stop doing this same thing that everyone on the right keeps doing. As if the media has been so nice to Obama. Almost every news network has begun to dismiss opinion polls and use the market as an indicator, so to act as if they are giving Obama a pass is absurd. Second, Bush made himself an easy late night target and provided 8 years of material. Plus he made a lot of dumb decisions that caused a lot of problems. Also, you must not have seen Stewart tear up Obama's first "fireside" news conference, or how he has ripped on Geither. Just give Obama time to provide him with material, and he will rag on Obama. I don't know for certain, but I bet if you look back at the beginning of the Bush years he probably didn't have much material in the first 2 months either.

[Joel]

I understand the points made, but really? "Since when is CNBC considered such a powerhouse of influence, anyway?" Am I to buy this cop-out? They're a *nation-wide* cable news network, advising Americans on their investments. As such they're part of that infamous fourth estate that is supposed to look out for our welfare when the government doesn't. And especially when the world is as dense and impenetrable as the economy is.

Bottom line: CNBC has a job to do. And they've been sloppy; therefore, they should be reprimanded.

[JayC]

I think this whole thing shines a light on our media and how screwed up it really is. When are people going to realize that these networks are businesses. There #1 goal is rating and profit, not the truth. Does anyone really believe if CNBC tried to call these CEO's out as crooks and theives that they would ever get interviews or news to report on from the companies those CEO's worked for? It's like if Hollywood Reporter started shining a light on all the BS that goes on with Hollywood. If they did that how much longer do you think it would be before those same studios in Hollywood would cut Hollywood Reporter off from ever getting a breaking news story again?

Stewart is a comedian so he can attack people more easily because people just write it off as comedy and Stewart doesn't rely on those people he attacks to provide him the content for his show. In fact since his show relys on being able to tear down people, the more FU things he can call them on the better off he is, but the major news networks don't have that luxery.

No offense to Stewart as I think he did a nice job in shining some light on something most people sweep under the rug, but at the same time an argument can be made that if Stewart is so pationate about this stuff why isn't he out there doing more stuff like this and less about fart jokes? The answer is because this only worked because of the shock value and if Stewart did more serious stuff like this on a regular basis that shock value would wear off and his viewers would loose interest and his show would be canceled.

[Tom]

The problem with Cramer and CNBC is the same as the problem with our government. Both are run by special interests. In the case of the government it is the outrageous hoard of lobbyists who control our elected officials and their decision making with donations. With Cramer and CNBC it is their advertisers who are their defacto lobbyists.

Let's face reality. It's all about the money whether it is real money or Mad Money.

It is shameful that Jim Cramer is yet another tool in the process. He is a smart guy who now generates his income as an entertainer just like Stewart.

Stewart doesn't hurt your pocketbook, but Cramer can for those fools who listen to his routine.

It's show business, folks, under any name!!!!

[nyguy]

Jon Stewart was flat out brilliant, just hand him the Emmy now.

The fact that a Comedy Central show is providing Americans with more cogent information about the pants currently around their ankles than the Big 3 networks that are broadcasting on our publicly owned airwaves is nothing short of tragic.

[Ratishaw]

I think we saw Cramer's true colors when Stewart played video of Cramer explaining how, when he was shorting a stock as a hedge fund manager, he would intentionally drive the price down by spreading false rumors. The legality of that practice was besides the point, he said, because the SEC didn't understand how things worked. Amazing. What a scumbag. Cramer essentially admitted he was a crook while noting that it was "Enjoyable". It further galls me that he gets away with his bat crazy bears and bulls in the context of a 'news' network. He's not providing news - it's op ed, at best, by a crook. Get him off the air.

[Journalist without a pause]

A few years back I had the chance to sit and talk with Jon. Only one complaint I had about the show I told him. Stop calling it the fake news. Far less is fake on the Daily Show than in, let's say a George Bush press conference. Fake, no. Over the top, usually. But then again, all one had to do to find humor in Bush and with all politicians for that matter is just broadcast them. No punchline needed. The best humor is always based on truth.

The same thing here with CNBC (as with anything on Fox except their soccer channel); all you have to do is line up what they say, in context mind you, and you have given them enough rope as they say.

There is more truth on the Daily Show than all of cable news and most of network reporting.

Kudos to Cramer for having the guts to go on with Stewart who, and I love you Jon, didn't really give him a chance to do anything but apologize.

Back after this word from our sponsors...

[David Craig]

"You shouldn't blame the messenger?" Are you kidding? That's like saying you shouldn't blame Paul Revere if he forgot his lantern that night...AND THOUGHT IT WAS FUNNY!

Not only are these people at CNBC staking claim to bringing real legitimate news and bringing hyperbole instead but, as evidenced by Cramer's off-camera interview, they know better. Like most of the news establishment these days, they sense no obligation or duty to report fairly and honestly. This is a game, a sport, entertainment...at the cost of people's homes, retirements, and lives.

The only acknowledgment I have for Cramer is the guts to get up there and take the fall for the whole network. He must be a masochist, but maybe that's just another way he gets his kicks.

The bigger question is how the media congloms will look upon this incident of a Viacom show taking down an NBC Universal host, program and network. This could get interesting. As a fan of this type of thing, I have my popcorn ready and I'm all tuned in to watch.

Shame on CNBC, among so many others in the television news establishment.
Bless Jon Stewart and the producers of the Daily Show.

[hamster]

"As such they're part of that infamous fourth estate that is supposed to look out for our welfare when the government doesn't."
No, they are a branch of the O-Ministration.

And Joel:
"First off stop doing this same thing that everyone on the right keeps doing. As if the media has been so nice to Obama."
First of all, I was talking about Stewart. He spends most of his time attacking Obama's attackers and critics. Is that not supporting him? And as for your other point:

Um....Andrea Mitchell? Brian Williams? Jennifer Loven of the AP (Married to a Kerry Staffer Advisor Guy)? The Breathless reporting from Katie Couric? Other than Tapper (no VRWC member himself), the media is acting as another press agent for O-man.

[rhys]

Your comparison of CNBC to a Nigerian e-mail scammer emphasizes the problem. The problem is that CNBC, and others, deliberately create a sense that they are a trustworthy and reputable source of financial news and advice. CNBC is a part of a major broadcasting company. How exactly is it supposed to be blatantly obvious to the average viewer that they are completely full of it and shouldn't listened to? Stewart had it exactly right when he said that him and Cramer are both snake oil salesmen, the difference being that Stewart actually says that upfront while Cramer and CNBC are actually trying to pass their BS off as real. He also had it right when he said "it's not a joke." They were playing with people's lives. Dismissing it as "entertainment" when sh*t hits the fan is completely disingenuous. It's packaged and sold as real news, real advice, from a supposedly reputable source. It's not a 2am infomercial for a DVD that will make you fabulously wealthy. Letting them off the hook for misleading thousands of average Americans just because you happen to be familiar enough with the TV business to see their advice is BS is completely ridiculous.

[MargeB]

"Only one complaint I had about the show I told him. Stop calling it the fake news. Far less is fake on the Daily Show than in, let's say a George Bush press conference. Fake, no."

Journalist, you are right. Not fake, not even comedy sometimes, more accurate to call it satire.

But it's the only way he can get away with it! Ever read Media virus by Douglas Rushkoff? Similar commentary about the Simpsons, how the animation is a cover for social criticism. Comedy shows that get a little too serious, tend to get cancelled (a la WKRP in the 70's).

So let Jon call his show "fake", I think he knows it's the only way he can do what he does.

[MacR]

Great entertainment!! We all love bad news!! That must be why there is 100 times as much coverage of the economy today as there is of the news that the latest FBI figures show rape, murder and other violent crimes are way down from the 50's (the "good" old days). Why do we hate good news?

[prtfvr]

Jon Stewart is awesome. I stopped watching him towards the end of the election because I couldn't take the one sided bashing of McCain. I wasn't thrilled with either choice but harass them equally.

Now he's back and he's talking about things that Obama's been doing that aren't always good ideas yet the audience feels that they can't laugh at their god. Well guess what, this god has clay feet, he's going to be made fun of and I'm going to love every minute of it!

[Pat H.]

I love Jim Cramer and thank him every day for telling his viewers over a year ago to sell AIG stock. I had thousands of dollars in AIG stock and sold it all when Mr. Cramer started telling people to sell. Because of this I lost very little. Everything Mr. Cramer has been saying about President Obama is correct. Obama and his polices scare me.
PatH

[Eric C]

I don't see CNBC or Jim Cramer changing as they are already "in bed" with the industry that they cover. This could be a very good opportunity for one of the "lesser" financial news networks, or any other network for that matter, to start a financial news program which is willing to get their hands dirty.

[Eric]

Jon Stewart really did let Cramer have it. If you watch his show regularly, you will recognize that his biggest beef is with the news networks and agencies even more so than politicans. Thus it isn't at all surprising that he is calling out CNBC for missing this whole thing. The 'hidden' message here is "what the heck happened to real investigative journalism?" Then again, who expects to find that on CNBC in the first place?

I must admit, the author of this article is spot on. It certainly isn't Cramer's fault or CNBC's that this financial crisis has happened. Sure, they didn't do anything to warn us about the impending doom... but did anyone really expect them to?

Really if you think about it, the signs of economic collapse where there. I remember two years ago talking to a friend who was thinking of getting into the 'flipping houses' business. I warned him that I believed the real estate market was going to crash. I felt that the prices were out of control and people were over-extended. Thus, it had to correct itself eventually......... I just didn't think it would bring the whole damn market down with it.

[jay]

I hate Jim Cramer and deride him every day for telling his viewers to buy Bear Stearns stock less than a year before it imploded. I had thousands of dollars in Bear stock and bought even more after Mr. Cramer said Bears was a solid company. Because of this I lost almost everything. Everything Mr. Cramer has been saying about President Obama is utterly incorrect. Democrat and Republican polices scare me.
Jay

[Ron H.]

This is one of the most inane articles I've seen on THR in a long time. Considering the lowly stature of this second rate trade, that's saying a lot. Witch hunt? Are you kidding? Only if you consider a witch hunt to be calling out, finally, the facts: CNBC is in bed with the very Wall Street big wigs who bear a large part of the blame for our current financial crisis. Are we supposed to feel pity for a GE-owned mouth piece for Wall Street excess? Jon Stewart took on the whole network and the constant drone of on-air support for the lies, back room deals and financial hocus pocus that a network like CNBC should have been raising red flags about. At no point did he BLAME CNBC or Jim Cramer for the financial crisis. He called the network for what it is: an active accomplice. Don't try to twist his words or mischaracterize his dead-on commentary. I know THR is desperate to find any way to be taken seriously and pretend it isn't always going to live in the shadow of Variety. Ham handed commentary like this just goes to show you why THR remains on the trade paper B-list.

[Ron H.]

PAT H. You know what scares me, when doofuses like you post comments like the one you posted here. Scarrrry.

[Ron H.]

Ummm...PRTFVR...can I ask which Jon Stewart and which DAILY SHOW you are watching? Is it the one on Comedy Central? With the same Jon Stewart who is also a big Obama supporter? Because, based on your comment, you are clearly watching some alternate universe version of the show. I know this might be hard for you to fathom but the reason Stewart and THE DAILY SHOW were "one sided" in their McCain bashing (aside from the fact the it was more than well deserved) is because the show has a liberal slant. Try paying attention to what you are watching. It will make your comments seem less addle brained.

[Ron H.]

HAMSTER: Do like your namesake...burrow under some sawdust and go away.

[Mal]

Ron H---

REad the article! I thought it was a very interesting slant I have not see anywhere else. Everybody else is following the media pack to chew up CNBC. He's not saying you should feel sorry for CNBC -- he called it terrific theater cathartic hilarious-- and hes NOT saying Stewart is blaming them for the financial crisis. He's saying that suck up reporting and clownish antics have been going on for years on CNBC. Thats who they are and nobody cared. The reason people are angry at CNBC is because of Stewart directing their massive anger about worldwide financial crisis at CNBC but compared to that issue CNBC and Cramer are spit in a hurricane. So the anger at CNBC is not due to what CNBC actually did or did not do but to something else that was far far far far far bigger than them. Why didnt the regulators do more? The Wall Street Journal? The New York Times? The government? CNN? 60 Minutes? The banks themselves? Some have been warning about this stuff for years and they weren't listened too either and when they were it didn't help.
To focus all this wrath on what one cable news network did or did not do -- especially after the fact because as Stewart says its really easy to take a position about this issue after the fact-- is disproportionate to their actual responsibility in all this.

[Veig]

OK, so we can all argue whether or not CNBC and their anchors are the "low hanging fruit" and whether they deserved this abuse since they are not the prioncipal cause of the crisis. However, you might also consider that:

- Jon Stewart has never missed a chance to crucify the "true villains" whenever they appeared in the news, be it Hank Paulson, Alan Greenspan, the managers of Bear Stearns, guys of the Bush administration or any other free market shill ;

- of course, none of these guys (including Rick Santelli, who was asked last week) ever accepted to appear on the show -- except Dana Perrino, who was graceful enough to do so ;

- I am grateful to Jim Cramer for accepting to face Stewart, even though he probably wasn't expecting such a hard time. I think the guy really needed to prove to himself and his audience that though he may have failed them -- sometimes knowingly -- his conscience won't give him a break, and he sought some sort of redemption. This, IMHO, makes a clear difference between guys like him, and cynics like Rick Santelli.

[Hamster]

Ron H:
No, I have a life that doesn't involve latte sipping and hanging around with interior decorators and other "metrosexuals".

Pay attention to where Stewart admits -- in what is supposed to be taken as great candor -- that his show is "not fair" and that fairness is not his job.

The trouble is that he of course believes it is, and wants to the public to believe it is. Does he believe that this interview with Cramer is unfair and filled with cheap-shots? If he doesn't, and if the public isn't supposed to take it as a fair dressing-down, what on earth is it on TV show? It's not funny, so that can't be the attraction.

His tone is one of heroic and self-righteous outrage, not jocular, breezy comedy. So would this be one of his "not fair" moments? If it's "not fair," and he intends it to be so and so acknowledges it, what's with the Cocksucker Crusader attitude?

Forgive me for being a bit confused about whether I'm supposed to take him as a comic or serious journalist at this moment.

This is a variation of Allah's favorite complaint, actually formulated by Treacher, I believe -- Stewart's "clown nose on, clown nose off act" -- wherein he attempts to have it both ways at once by posing as a heroic seeker of truth and then, when his sloppiness, unfairness, and lack of substance are pointed out to him, declaims "I'm just a comedian with a silly TV show!"

Notice that as Stewart's hyperpartisan fanboys in the media praise him for his intrepid doggedness, Stewart notably does not correct them to say, "No, that was an unfair bit of impromptu dinner-theater by a TV clown." The "just a comedian' or "not our job to be fair" statements only arise when Stewart is criticized for his shallow demagoguery -- and never when he is praised for his shallow demagoguery.

And yes, whatever Cramer's sins are, he's had them for years. It's interesting -- by which I mean uninteresting -- that Stewart only suddenly notices Cramer's sins when the financial pundit challenges Obama.

If Stewart was motivated by speaking Truth to Power to the financial insiders who he claims caused this problem, why did he not take on Cramer before? Cramer was just as much an insider when he was supporting Barack Obama for President, wasn't he?

Incidentally, earlier in this dust-up Stewart presented an edited clip which purported to show that Cramer was claiming Bear-Sterns was a solid investment days before it went tits-up. This is a lie. I know it's a lie because I mentioned this here when it happened, claiming the same thing. I was immediately informed by commenters that Cramer hadn't been talking about investments in Bear-Sterns being safe, but merely deposits there, which are federally insured (up to $100,000 at that time, now $250,000) and that therefore there was no reason to run on the bank and withdraw such money.

When commenters told me this, I checked the tape. Guess what? They were right. It sticks in my mind because I, unlike Stewart, tend to remember when I got things wrong and had to issue a correction.

This was all known a year ago (when it happened) but Jon Stewart, Seeker of Truth, is still peddling the lie that Cramer told people to hold onto their Bear-Sterns stock.

Clown nose on, clown nose off. Hey, if he's unfair (and actually deliberately slanderous) from time to time, it's not his job to be fair, right? Just a comic on tv. Clown nose on.

But oh, by the way, keep those Hoseannas coming, boys. He is, as one media suckophant says, the "conscience" of the media. Clown nose off.

[D.B.]

You are completely missing the point. Stewart is not blaming CNBC for the crisis, he's pointing out their lack of accurate reporting and cozying up with their sources as the reasons why they failed. I hope CNBC loses the public's confidence (and ratings) because of their absolute and undeterred lameness, and I thank the comedian for doing his part on the reporting deal. It helps keep reporters with absolutely nothing to say to keep their mouths shut. 300,000 viewers are actual people. Follow the good example, Mr.

[DL]

Anybody following CNBC had a better understanding of this crisis as it was unfolding than the average person despite their occasional fk ups. To make it sound like CNBC viewers lost more money than others is ridiculous.

[R. YOUNG]

Sadly this is an indication that Jon Stewart is no longer funny in the age of Obama. The showdown is NOT FUNNY...this is supposed to be Comedy Central??? No comedy at all.

Jon Stewart needs to find a new gig.

[hamster]

R. Young:
True. But I want to know: is Stewart "clown nose on" or "off" now?

[hamster]

http://www.nypost.com/seven/03172009/gossip/pagesix/bro_helped_jon_clobber_jim_159907.htm

Also, will you acknowledge this?

[Nate]

This rant against CNBC was at the worst possible time. When everyone needed focus on where to invest now for what might turn out to be a big comeback rally. Cramer could have been talking about getting back into some financial stocks. BAC is up about 30%. Tell Stewart to kiss his ass and that we are not a nation of peasant workers. CNBC had guests on their shows that predicted the worst almost from the beginning. Maybe not the reporters but most of the time they have a bear guy and a bull guy on as guests and they give point vs- counterpoint on the market. There was information if people wanted to listen.

[Dana]

The main point of Stewart's role in this debate was similar to his also-popular appearance on Crossfire a few years back (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE) where he takes the same stance. The media failed us in its reporting. Cramer took CEOs' words at face value, reporters take what the White House says at face value, and so on. I think Stewart misses reporting like All the President's Men. You completely missed his point.

You are way too easily making Bush the big person at fault. This country is huge, the bankers were unregulated, the media sucks, the American consciousness doesn't seem to believe in "savings" and only "credit cards," and so on and so on. Stewart did NOT say CNBC caused the worst economic atmosphere since the Great Depression, but that doesn't wipe their hands entirely clean, which Cramer agreed with! Bush obviously also wasn't the guest for this show, Cramer was. In line with what you said though, I would love if Stewart got to interview Bush and the CEOs and the bankers and everyone involved. I would also love it if a judge interviewed many of these people.

It should also be noted that this began as another little segment against CNBC like all the other little segments the Daily Show does, and it's Cramer's reaction that fueled it into an all-out controversy that sparked this long four part interview. It is not an all-out witch hunt because The Daily Show started it out that way -- Cramer came onto the show to defend himself, and didn't do too well.