Richard Cohen dares to criticize John Stewart, which will no doubt anger Stewart's hundreds of thousands of fans.
But Cohen seems to misunderstand the most vile aspect of the Cramer/Stewart fight: It was prompted not by Cramer's shoddy financial advice, which people who pay close attention to this stuff have been mocking for years.
No, John Stewart only discovered what a contemptible figure Cramer was after Cramer had the audacity to criticize President Obama.
It's not clear to me that there's any foundational difference between Stewart and David Brock, except that people in the mainstream media feel the constant need to genuflect before Stewart.
17 hours ago
6 comments:
Thanks for this. I agree completely. It's great to watch people get off on a fake news guy criticizing a fake financial advice dude.
C'mon JVL.
The Daily Show originally mocked Rick Santelli's "Chicago Tea Party" uprising. When Santelli bailed on appearing on TDS, Stewart did what anyone should do, make a broad mockery of Santelli and the entire CNBC operation. Cramer just happens to be an easy target among many on the network.
Cramer also made the mistake to trying to once again defend his Bear Stearns call while mocking Stewart as a mere comedian.
Stewart was right to apologize for airing the Lightning Round clip, since it's technically arguable that Cramer didn't say to buy Bear Stearns, but Stewart's researchers found damning evidence from just days earlier. And they ran with it. I thought it was great TV, based not on Cramer's intra-party criticism of Obama, but on Cramer's lame attempt at defending his BS call.
The unedited Cramer/Stewart interview is fascinating. It's only funny in the way Ricky Gervais is funny as David Brent--it's awkward and often cringeworthy. Stewart seems genuinely angry, and seems frustrated that Cramer and his ego takes most of the criticisms personally, when Cramer is only a small part of the greater problem with CNBC.
Stewart's point is CNBC has failed to act as a journalistic institution, questioning CEO's PR pronouncements and perma-bull notions like buy-and-hold that have cost most of us much of our accumulated 401(k) wealth. Stewart even mentioned his retired mother's decimated investments. I think his anger was personal and broad-based, and not based on anything related to Obama.
What I want to know is, what the hell was Cramer thinking when he appeared on TDS so woefully unprepared? Instead of looking like a Harvard Law grad, he was more like the OJ prosecutors when the glove wouldn't fit.
Who cares about Stewart vs. Cramer, Instapundit tells me 347 people turned out for a Tea Party in Dundalk, MD, and 172 showed up in Springfield (insert State here), almost 400 showed up in a McDonalds somewhere. This is a real movement, we can build on this. Ayn Rand, John Galt, Rick Santelli! PORKBUSTERS!!!!
JOE THE MOTHERFUCKING PLUMBER!!!!!!
We Can Build on This!!!!!!!!!!!!
That won't so much anger Stewart's fans as make them eagerly await the next TDS to see what Stewart might do to Cohen. My guess is that won't happen since satirizing/abusing printed materials doesn't make good TV, but it's fun to imagine.
JVL, with regard to Stewart's motivation for going after Cramer, I'm concerned that you and Tucker Carlson are reading off the same script. I like to think you're above that.
Finally, the Cohen piece was jaw-droppingly dumb. "How could we know anything was wrong with AIG since its execs kept their money in?" That, my friends, is journalism at its hard-hitting, assumption-questioning best.
YO P.G.--STOP PIMPIN ON ME!
GALLEY SLAVES CAN ONLY HAVE ONE ALL CAPS COMMENTER! ACCEPT NO IMITATIONS!!!
I SUSPECT ROSS DOUTHAT HAS A RICH, LUXURIANT CARPET OF BACK HAIR, BUT I CAN'T PROVE IT YET!!!
ACAS, as someone who had planned on eating sometime in the next 24 hours, thanks for nothing, pal.
Post a Comment