the Jon Stewart/Jim Cramer dust-up

Why? This seems like that mentality where you need a scapegoat for the altar, not matter how tenuous the pretext.

If we were to get all moral with Stewart we should require that he preface his attacks on other networks, shows and personalities with the disclaimer that he likely stands to profit from doing so.

You know, in the interest of full disclosure* and all.

*Hey, two can play journalism high horse.

I think a lot of this argument is simplified if you admit that CNBC is not a reporting channel, but something more akin to the Home Shopping Network.

Cycloptichorn

Perhaps RG. I am however very comfortable with a comedian making their money off of ratings. Someone handing out information and asking people to trust them, I for whatever crazy reason want to hold to a higher standard.

T
K
O

That was a disclaimer and I believe Stewart made a quip about it during the show. He's likely cut off the DS from a lot of potential advertisers and I don't think a little surge in the ratings is necessarily going to spell out much more money for commercial time. The rates are based on a Niesen track record for the year. The salesmen from the Comedy Channel have that responsibility, not Stewart. Hey, perhaps he is miffed for not being asked back to host the Oscars?

robert wrote :



and neither did i .

i wrote :



imo the financial commentators are "holding themselves out to be qualified" to give financial advice .
i have not noticed that the programs are prefaced with a warning that the advisers/commentators/performers are NOT qualified to give such advice .
sometimes there is a minuscule written comment at the end of the program - but i've never been able to decipher it - it's what one sees when cars are being advertised .

robert further writes :



imo if the advice is risky (but not only that , it is likely given by people that are not qualified and therefor likely do not have to subscribe to a code of ethics) , the NETWORKS should have the responsiblity to make that clear .
expecting the "ordinary" listener to have to sift through that is , if not "scamming" , at least "unethical" (and i'm not sure what is worse) .

of course , it is an easy escape for the networks and the "performers" to claim that since they are NOT qualified through any governing body , they also do not have a code of ethics to subscribe to and can therefor not be blamed for anything they ever say .

personally i believe i have at least a bit of understanding of the financial market and am not likely to be swayed one way or the other by any commentors , but expecting every "ordinary" listener to be aware of the fact that these people likely are NOT qualified , is stretching things a bit (hence my comparison to such shows as "cartalk" ) .

if those financial shows would have no effect upon "ordinary" investors , i'm sure they would no longer find any sponsors .
no investment professional is likely going to pay any attention to the "talking heads" ; they get their information directly from the market .
those shows are squarely directed at the non-professionals imo - they are like those old-fashioned "flycatchers" .


and they did catch plenty of "flies" .
hbg

Right, if I had listened to that nut case, Cramer, I would be in holy hot water. He deserves every kick-in-the-pants he gets and wailing about Stewart until he gets on the show and virtually wilts into a sniveling little frog (I don't know, he looks like a frog) is enough for him to lose every advertiser foolish enough to spend a nickle on him.

I rewatched the interview. I feel bad for Cramer. He got to be the one to take all the bullets, but I think it's because he represents the type of bad network decisions CNBC made. He's a likable guy, and so maybe Jon Stewart will take it easy on him... yeah... not so much.

I would have rather seen a different guest on the show, that one screaming idiot, or perhaps a CNBC producer.

I am impressed however that Cramer kept his cool while being force fed some serious humble pie.

T
K
O

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, ...