Tucker Carlson presented faulty timeline as purported evidence Stewart's criticism of Cramer "was a partisan attack"
SUMMARY: On Reliable Sources, Tucker Carlson asserted regarding Jon Stewart's recent criticism of CNBC's Jim Cramer: "This was a partisan attack. He went after -- he went after Cramer the moment Cramer criticized [President] Obama's budget. That was the mortal sin. That's what kicked off this entire feud." Carlson made a similar claim to the Politico. In fact, Stewart criticized Cramer at least as far back as March 17, 2008, for claiming that investment firm Bear Stearns was "not in trouble" less than a week before the company collapsed.
During a March 15 discussion on CNN's Reliable Sources about Comedy Central host Jon Stewart's recent criticism of CNBC host Jim Cramer for his coverage of the current financial crisis, MSNBC political analyst Tucker Carlson asserted: "This was a partisan attack. He went after -- he went after Cramer the moment Cramer criticized [President] Obama's budget. That was the mortal sin. That's what kicked off this entire feud." According to a March 13 Politico article, Carlson similarly told Politico: "[Cramer's] real sin was attacking Obama's economic policies. If he hadn't done that, Stewart never would have gone after him. Stewart's doing Obama's bidding. It's that simple." In fact, as Media Matters for America has documented, Stewart criticized Cramer at least as far back as March 17, 2008, for claiming that investment firm Bear Stearns was "not in trouble" less than a week before the company collapsed -- the same remarks that Stewart has highlighted on recent editions of his show.
During the Reliable Sources segment, host Howard Kurtz noted to Carlson that in 2004 Stewart "went on your old show, Crossfire, the now-defunct CNN program Crossfire." Kurtz then aired a clip from that appearance in which Stewart claimed Carlson and his Crossfire co-hosts were engaging in "partisan hackery" and told Carlson he "need[s] to go to" journalism school. Kurtz then said that Carlson has "been on the receiving end of a Jon Stewart lecture" and asked Carlson: "[D]oes that color your view at all of his perspicacity?"
From the March 15 edition of Reliable Sources:
KURTZ: Did Jon Stewart prove his case against Jim Cramer?
CARLSON: Can you imagine Jim Cramer sitting there and taking a sanctimonious lecture from Jon Stewart? Yes, I mean, Cramer was craven and sweaty and pathetic. I'm sure his wife is ashamed of his behavior, the butt-sniffing he gave Jon Stewart. But Jon Stewart -- let's be honest. This was a partisan attack. He went after -- he went after Cramer the moment Cramer criticized Obama's budget. That was the mortal sin. That's what kicked off this entire feud. You don't dare --
KURTZ: You don't buy the notion that Jon Stewart is angry? I mean, Jon Stewart's been --
CARLSON: Of course he's angry. He's angry about a lot of things.
KURTZ: Right.
CARLSON: But, look, was Jim Cramer the only analyst to call it wrong --
KURTZ: No.
CARLSON: -- to come up with stupid stock picks? Of course not. He criticized Obama's budget, and that's what started this. Because in the end -- in the end, Jon Stewart is a partisan hack.
[...]
STEPHANIE MILLER (radio host): And Tucker, I think you're wrong on that. This did not start because he criticized -- because Cramer criticized Obama. This started, you know, he was just doing a rant against CNBC. Jim Cramer was included. It was because of Santelli going off on the American homeowner that Stewart took them to task. So I don't think it had anything to do with President Obama or that policy.
CARLSON: Well, Santelli wasn't going off on the American homeowner, of course. He was going off on Obama and Obama's policies. And that's -- that's the point here. Look, Jon Stewart is a political player. He's a partisan. He is speaking on behalf of the Democratic Party, and in so doing, becoming, I think -- I mean, he's smart and he's talented, but he's becoming so self-serious and so sanctimonious that it's just a matter of time before he becomes unfunny. I mean, this is the fate of all kinds of comedians. This is the fate of Lenny Bruce. And it will happen. You watch.
DAVID ZURAWIK (Baltimore Sun television critic): With -- honestly, Tucker, with all due respect, I think it's a horrible mistake to look at this through that kind of ideological prism. You know, back in October on this show, we were going after Cramer for this. This -- and what we were going after him for is essentially what Stewart talked about. It is that the job of journalism is to give citizens information that they can use to make good decisions, sound decisions about their life. CNBC, Cramer, Santelli, that whole crew is doing the opposite in a time of crisis. They're giving us bad information. Thank God Stewart went after him.
KURTZ: Hold on, hold on. They're not just giving us bad information. You can take videotape and say they were wrong on this and Cramer was wrong on Bear Stearns. But they also do a lot of reporting. You seem to object --
ZURAWIK: Yes.
KURTZ: -- you seem to object when anybody wants to have a good time or jazz things up to make people watch. It's television.
ZURAWIK: It's television, Howie, but really, this is -- would you not say we are in a time of crisis and people are looking to us as the press? This is the other reason that people don't like us in the press. They say, "Oh, I want to come and get some information," and instead they get clown-show Cramer up there. And I think that's --
CARLSON: Wait a sec --
ZURAWIK: -- I think -- honestly, I think it is so dangerous for right now in this democracy for us to not be able to know where we can that information in the press. And obviously, you would turn to a financial news network in an economic crisis.
CARLSON: Wait a second. I'm not defending CNBC or its bad calls, but you are not even commenting on the demagoguery of Jon Stewart, who's posing as if CNBC is singlehandedly responsible for this recession, which it is not. You will never see Jon Stewart criticize the economic policies of this administration. He is acting on their behalf. He is looking through an ideological lens as he sees this.
[...]
KURTZ: I think we need to put on the table what Jon Stewart did. Actually, he came on this show in 2002 and he did a rant about CNN and "You're the news, don't be entertainment, you've got to help us." Then he went on your old show, Crossfire, the now-defunct CNN program Crossfire. Let's play a little bit of that from 2004.
[begin video clip]
STEWART: It's not honest. What you do is not honest. What you do is partisan hackery.
The interesting thing that I have is, you have a responsibility to the public discourse, and you fail miserably.
CARLSON: You need to get a job in a journalism school, I think.
STEWART: You need to go to one.
[end video clip]
KURTZ: So you've been on the receiving end of a Jon Stewart lecture, clearly.
CARLSON: Yeah.
KURTZ: And does that color your view at all of his perspicacity?
CARLSON: It's all the same. I mean, to call me a partisan hack is ludicrous. I am the least partisan person I know.
KURTZ: Oy!
CARLSON: I have zero interest in party politics -- zero interest. I spent half my life attacking Republicans. I have -- I'm an ideologue, truly. I have ideas that are distinct from partisan politics.
What's interesting is how the MSM is now suddenly ignoring Stewart, since he has broadened this issue beyond personalities, and has attacked the whole generic media problem revolving around their deadly silliness on life-and-death issues.
You just broke down this whole thing very succinctly. Thank you, good job.
They certainly went out of their way not to address the issue. That's for damned sure.
Just like howie the hack went out of his way not to call tuck the schmuck on his absurd gop-slop nonsense about Stewart being "a partisan hack representing the Obama Administration and the Democratic Party" while claiming not to be one himself.
Stewart only said that the story was bigger than Cramer before goin' Carly Simon on his sorry butt and reminding him that the song wasn't about him, but they didn't utter a word about that.
Once again, the myth of the SCLM is shredded by the SCLM.
Amen to that. Well said.
Another pat on the back!
What is especially galling is that those JOURNALISTS who grasp the concept are invariably pushed to the side by the....what do we label people like Carlson?....blowhards?.... who seem to run these shows.
Carlson is the least partisan person he knows. Who's this guy hanging with, Bill Kristol?
What's really funny about this thread....
is that Tucker felt it necessary to try and come to Jim Cramers defense... AFTER Jim cramer took the time to go on Stewart's show...
For what Tucker mentioned... one might think that Jim Cramer might have brought it up with Stewart right then and there on Stewarts show last week...
Either Cramer didn't feel it was warranted... or Cramer is a wussy? Does Cramer need Tucker to defend his honor?
Whatever the answer... Tucker is a punk for trying to make a mountain out of what seems to be nothing more than a mole hill.
for real! Why doesn't tucker talk about what Cramer said on Stewart's show?
Tucker Carlson is, frankly, a fool. But that's no surprise. To be more precise, he is a twit, like so many in the MSM. He was no match for Stewart then, and even less, now.
Remember that sniveling little creep with the bow tie whose nervous chuckle rose in pitch at every brilliant jab from Jon Stewart? Yeah, that one. You probably thought he was toast, but obviously he had to be re-cycled sans bow. I guess one can be reamed, steamed, and dry cleaned by a lowly comedian in front of millions of viewers and still have your job. I completely forget the other guy's name.
Jon Stewart makes fun of Obama:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=220241&title=mess-opotamia-the-iraq-war-is
Tucker Carlson is acting absurd, by implying that Jon Stewart would criticize someone just because that person criticized Obama.
How conspiratorial and vapid this whole argument is. Wouldn't a more effective way of countering Cramer's criticism of the budget (which I didn't see so I can't really address) be to actually mention it? What's really ironic is that Jon Stewart spent the majority of the short time before he brought Cramer on making fun of Obama. He's been doing it more and more lately, and I've been pretty happy with how funny it all is. I feel like we're getting some scared right-wingers who are realizing just how important a mechanism the Daily Show has been and can be for tearing down the walls of Beltway journalism, whose gentleman's agreements have always tended to favor the right. That interview was a big, stunningly nonpartisan moment in time. It was what every one of those airheaded commentators though Rick Santelli's ignorant, classist rant was: an American man speaking for the American people in an intelligent, though thoroughly ticked off manner.
By the way, how come I can say stuff like "goddamn" and "ass", but I can't say p*ssed off without that stupid thing telling me not to use any profanity?
"Though Rick Santelli's" should read "thought Rick Santelli's". You can probably still understand it, but it's important to the point so I thought I'd correct.
The "O" filter is a strange beastie.
Daily Show viewers are somehow better informed than MSM viewers. Not bad for a comedy show. More of a naked view of how bad MSM is at its task.
Damning with faint praise, but let's appreciate what little we deserve.
Hey Pat, I was gonna try to get the word titty through the filter Friday on that Fox Nerws/ bikini story, but I got interrupted and never finished my post. So we'll see if it goes through today. And I had the same experience as you with the word ass. I could put that word through, but not ar se (which btw people is a real word in the dictionary :-0)). One day I couldn't get the word circumspect through. I guess because of the middle syllyble. So, yeah this filter is weird
And I can say that Dick Cheney's a dick, even though that's not really approporiate either. (Well... OK, it's appropriate, but it's still profane.)
"You can prick your finger... but don't finger your prick!" - George Carlin, 7 Dirty Words follow-up.
By the way, I'm not really familiar with Stephanie Miller. I've heard of her before, and friends of mine have pretty mixed opinions, even on the left, but is she normally this bad? What an awful point that was, suggesting that it was just Santelli that motivated something that was about the entire network, and journalists in general being buddy-buddy and amicable with the corrupt, shady individuals whose misdeeds they're theoretically paid to expose. "Who are you working for?" was the main question. She completely played into Tucker Carlson's hands with that reply, and nobody should be getting played by Tucker Carlson.
Air America 6-9 A.M. out chear on the upper left coast. She has much experience with various wingnuts who call in. Her show is played mostly as comedy, but facts are used. I'll have to see what she says tomorrow. If she blew it she'll probably admit it
What started this round was another spate of lies by the MSM. They claimed that Obama's press secretary brought up Santelli out of the blue to attack him, when it was Santelli who called out Obama in the first place.
Then Jim Cramer decided that they weren't just criticizing Santelli, they were attacking the entire CNBC network, and then he made it personal. Stewart decided that two could play the game.
Cramer may have tried to slip in the first punch, but Stewart delivered the knockout, and he did it so well Cramer thought he had bearely been touched.
CARLSON: I have zero interest in party politics -- zero interest. I spent half my life attacking Republicans.
Gee, Tuck, that must be the half of your life before you got into television. Let's face it, Jon Stewart embarrassed Tucker Carlson and thus is Carlson's lame attempt at payback. Tucker Carlson has a deserving job description...former television talk show host who occasionally reappears as a guest when they can't find anyone else.
"Let's face it, Jon Stewart embarrassed Tucker Carlson and thus is Carlson's lame attempt at payback."
Yeah, that was kind of where I was leaning with this. It seems like Tucker's been laying in wait for five years for the chance to call Jon Stewart a "partisan hack". Notice how he stopped wearing the bow-tie too?
Tucker is what, 39?
So, let's stipulate than from birth to age 20 Carlson attacked his parents, who are Republicans.
What is the saddest thing about this story is that it is fast becoming if it is not all ready to there tha the Daily Show with Jon Stewart is the best place to get truthful fair news.
The Daily Show and The Colbert Report are the ONLY places I go for news. If those shows are comedy, it is because the world of politics IS FUNNY! The tragedy is that what comes out of the mouths of the politicians and their hacks at the Main Stream Media is often nothing but a smokescreen obscuring the truth. "Comedians" like Jon Stewart are now the ONLY people who have the wit and the morality to expose the constant lies fed to us by the very ones we expect to get our "information" from. He is doing the job that they have refused to do.
I do like how all of a sudden, Tucker Carlson is not some partisan hack. As if.
I like how Stewart, just because he calls out Cramer (a self pronounced life long democrat) that this is somehow a partisan attack. Now, if we take Cramer at his word, at being a life long democrat, and we take Stewart for his word that he too is a democrat, isn't this the total opposite of a partisan attack?
Methinks that Tucker doesn't know what partisan actually means.
Not to mention, let's just talk about what Stewart went over with Cramer. Does his questions have, or not have merit Tucker? That's the main issue here. Talk about the substance of what they discussed, and or what Stewart excoriated him for why don't you?
That, and anyone who watches the Daily Show will know that yes, Stewart is a most likely, 99.999%, a democrat, but have they not seen him make fun of, well, other democrats? He does it often. And since the guy in the White House is now, a democrat, he does it even more.
If Stewart were attacking someone for attacking Obama, he'd have to do a "Sybil" show with himself.
Jim Cramer is a Democrat. That's no secret I guess except to Tucker. So as usuall he has no point.
The only partisan hack here is Carlson, who's feebly trying to get even with Stewart for pwning him on his own show. When Carlson complained that Stewart wasn't being funny, Stewart replied:
"Tomorrow I'll go back to being funny, but you'll still be a dick in a bow-tie."
Carlson? You were pwned. You were schooled, real bad. You got a rhetorical atomic wedgie. And you HAD IT COMING. Lay off of Stewart, dude, for you own good. You are shooting spitballs at a battleship.
Tucker Carlson was bitch-slapped by Stewart and it still stings. Why is anyone listening to him?
Why are the "sources" on Reliable Sources so incredibly unreliable?
What the hell are you talking about?