After admitting culpability during Daily Show interview, Cramer now calls Stewart's criticism of CNBC "naïve and misleading"
SUMMARY: On Today, Jim Cramer asserted of Daily Show host Jon Stewart that "it was a naïve and misleading thing to attack the media" for their coverage of the economic recession, just one week after acknowledging that CNBC's reporting deserved criticism during an appearance on The Daily Show.
During the March 19 edition of NBC's Today, Jim Cramer, host of CNBC's Mad Money, asserted of Daily Show host Jon Stewart that "it was a naïve and misleading thing to attack the media" for their coverage of the economic recession, just one week after acknowledging that CNBC's reporting deserved criticism during an appearance on The Daily Show.
According to Reuters, following Stewart's interview of Cramer, NBC Universal chief executive Jeff Zucker reportedly attacked Stewart over his criticism of CNBC in his March 18 keynote address at the McGraw-Hill Media Summit in New York. According to Reuters, Zucker called Stewart "unfair," "absurd," and "completely out of line." Additionally, according to mediabistro.com's TVNewser blog, an unnamed "tipster" said that MSNBC executives were asked not to air the Stewart interview in their programming the day following Cramer's Daily Show appearance.
On Today, co-host Meredith Vieira stated that Stewart accused Cramer and CNBC of being "cheerleaders for the financial bubble; that you also had allowed CEOs to come on the shows and essentially lie to the American public without really challenging them." Viera then asked: "I don't want to rehash the whole thing, but did he have a point?" Cramer responded, "I don't think so." He later said that "it was a naïve and misleading thing to attack the media. We -- we weren't behind this. CNBC, in particular, has been out front on this." During the interview, Vieira asked: "So, you don't think the media bears any responsibility, Jim?" Cramer responded:
CRAMER: I think that there are people who bear so much more responsibility that it's just wrong-headed -- the politicians, the regulators, the SEC, the lenders, the investment banks. I mean, listen to AIG. I mean, you're going to compare the media to AIG? There's some people who really should get in line to do -- to really take the responsibility. And the media, it's just a naïve focus. It really is, Meredith.
However, during his March 12 appearance on The Daily Show, Cramer asserted: "I think that everyone could come in under criticism because we all should have seen it more." Cramer continued: "[A]dmittedly, this is a terrible one, and everybody got it wrong. I got a lot of things wrong, because I think it was kind of a one-in-a-million shot. But I don't think anyone should be spared in this environment." Cramer also stated of CNBC that "we're fair game. We're a big network. We've been out front and we've made mistakes."
From the March 19 edition of NBC's Today:
VIEIRA: OK, before I let you go, Jim, this is your first appearance here since the appearance on Jon Stewart's show.
CRAMER: You noticed?
VIEIRA: I noticed -- I noticed that. He was tough on you. You've had a rough week -- he was very tough on you, very tough on CNBC -- basically said that you guys had been cheerleaders for the financial bubble; that you also had allowed CEOs to come on the shows and essentially lie to the American public without really challenging them. I don't want to rehash the whole thing, but did he have a point?
CRAMER: I don't think so. I think --
VIEIRA: Not on any of this?
CRAMER: Well, I think it was a naïve and misleading thing to attack the media. We -- we weren't behind this. CNBC, in particular, has been out front on this. [CNBC senior economics reporter] Steve Liesman broke the first big, big subprime story. [CNBC anchor and reporter] David Faber did the best work that I've seen of any journalist -- print. [CNBC host] Erin [Burnett] has been at the forefront; talked about it so much we used to joke about, "Erin, how often are you going to talk about subprime?"
VIEIRA: So, you don't think the media bears any responsibility, Jim?
CRAMER: I think that there are people who bear so much more responsibility that it's just wrong-headed -- the politicians, the regulators, the SEC, the lenders, the investment banks. I mean, listen to AIG. I mean, you're going to compare the media to AIG? There's some people who really should get in line to do -- to really take the responsibility. And the media, it's just a naïve focus. It really is, Meredith.
VIEIRA: OK, and at the end of the interview you said you were going to try harder in terms of talking to the American public. What did you mean by that?
CRAMER: I think everyone has to. This is a crisis where everybody has to re-examine -- you know, that was an attempt, as it was throughout the interview, to take a high road, which I was brought up to think was a good thing to do, and to go in for a discussion. Sometimes high roads aren't well greeted in the media, but I believe that you should always try to do better. I think that that's kind of the fundament of what we all as journalists try to do.
VIEIRA: Jim Cramer, thank you very much. Erin Burnett as well.
From the March 12 edition of Comedy Central's The Daily Show with Jon Stewart:
STEWART: Let me just explain to you very quickly one thing that I think is somewhat misinterpreted: This was not directed at you, per se. I just want to let you know that. We threw some banana cream pies at CNBC; you got a little, obviously, schmutz on your jacket from it, took exception.
CRAMER: I think that everyone could come in under criticism --
STEWART: Right.
CRAMER: -- because we all should have seen it more. I mean, admittedly, this is a terrible one, and everybody got it wrong. I got a lot of things wrong, because I think it was kind of a one-in-a-million shot. But I don't think anyone should be spared in this environment.
STEWART: So then, if I may, why were you mad at us?
CRAMER: No --
STEWART: Because I was under the impression that you thought we were being unfair.
CRAMER: No, you had my friend [New York Times business columnist] Joe Nocera on, and Joe called me and said, "Jim, do I need to apologize to you?" I said, "No, we're fair game. We're a big network. We've been out front and we've made mistakes. We've got 17 hours of live TV a day to do." But I certainly --
STEWART: Maybe you could cut down on that. We're going to go away. We're gonna come right back with Jim Cramer, right after this.
for me right now, cramer is funny to watch. i do intend once i get some money together to try and invest just to see if he is right.
Funny you say that- I just took (legally) his book 'Stay Mad For Life' out of the library ten day ago and was flipping through for any nuggets of wisdom and the next day or so this whole thing with CNBC and the Daily Show got rolling.
Cramer embarrassed himself in the clips on the Daily Show, but showed some humility while not really answering anything from Stewart. And now he hides behind his studio again... pathetic.
Save your money, he's not. HIs stock picks have a TERRIBLE track record. MSN tested him for a few months back in... '06? or '07? and he lagged the market BIG TIME.
So he's saying that when he was on TDS and said he and other finanical reporters are "legitimate targets" for criticism and that yeah, he and the others should have done better and yeah, corporate executives lied to his face and he never challenged them, and so on - he's saying that admitting all that was "taking the high road?"
In that case, what does he call what he's doing now?
What Cramer expressed on Stewart's show were his thoughts and opinions. Here, on Today, he's saying what NBC told him to say.
He a coward, backpedalling from his few minutes of honesty with Stewart. He's back in his castle now, so he feels safe to start posturing again. SOmehow I doubt he'll reciprocate and host Stewart anytime soon.
I was briefly taken in by the Cramer razzle-dazzle a few years back and was even foolish enough to invest a little money in stocks he pushed. (Mistake! They all lost money!) It was embarrassing to wake up and realize that here is an unquestionably smart guy--a super salesman for his own books--whose primary loyalty is not to his viewers, his country or even his network. He is owned lock, stock and barrel by his former employer, Goldman Sachs. (Check out Elliot Spitzer's comments on the AIG-Goldman Sachs connection.)
This whole thing is a mess. If Cramer could take a joke this whole thing would have gone away. But, when you decide to take on those who poke fun at the world you simultaneously give credence to their arguements and make yourself a target. Cramer put a big kick me sign on his back and now he can't take it back. Then you make the big mistake of going on their show!!! Where they control the field. He went in there with nothing and came out with Stewarts foot broken off in his A**.
That is the funniest part to me. A good many of these stories on MMA about media figures lashing out at blogs and media watchdog groups would not exist if the average journalist were really an adult and just let stuff go.
Of course alternatively all of these stories on MMA would not exist if Media figures weretruly honest and forthright and didn't try to pass off editorials and agendas as actual news.
Especially funny after Cramer said that he didn't know CEOs would lie.
This is mild compared to many things out there but it does seem to fit right in with the "you better toe the line or else" meme that is in style now.
If it ain't in the news, and it don't contain misinformation, it won't make it here. In the meantime, you're 'nothing to see here, please move on' posts can remind all of that which should not be.
Not sure why John Stewart (who I like) and Cramer (Who i don't like) are getting more PR to promote what I feel is a genuine partnership between these two idiots to prop up there shows and gain more PR for both of them.
This is worse that the Olbermann /Oreilly BS we have to deal with.
Which would make not tuning in ideal in your case.
So Stewart is an idiot manufacturing an argument in order to get publicity, but you like him.
In any event, I guess the only alternative is for Stewart not to fire back when Cramer accuses Stewart of taking him out of context, suggesting that he really didn't want people to buy Bear Stearns. Or maybe Stewart shouldn't have criticized CNBC in the first place. I don't see the alternative. If Cramer lashes out in an unfair and/or dishonest manner, then Stewart has the right to address that. If Cramer does it again, Stewart has the right to do it again. It works the other way exactly the same.
Whenever anyone criticizes someone, then that's just criticism. If some sort of back-and-forth comes from it, then it's a conspiracy in your mind. Very strange.
Speak for yourself! I love all the Olbermann/O'Reilly stuff, as well as the Olbermann/Limbaugh stuff, as well as... well, you get the picture. Bring on, Keith!
Cramer must've been severely dressed down by his boss(es) after the Stewart interview. No surprises here... completely expected actually. Just another nutless tool.
It's sad to have pretend journalists like Cramer who are really just P.R. fronts for CEOs of the firms they are supposed to be reporting on. Is there anyone who doesn't see the conflict of interest here?
i know from watching his show that most times when he does his picks....that if he has any stock from them he quickly says that either his trust owns it or that he is chairman of the street. so i think he is pretty aware of his conflicts.
Cramer just can't keep his contradicting mouth shut can he? Time for Stewart to destroy him again.
Silly me, I really thought Stewart made significant headway in calling out CNBC for their lack of journalistic integrity and that we might start making some progress. This isn't really about what Cramer said on the show (what could he say? He was flat out busted) or how Stewart might respond to this Today show stuff.
What matters is that we DON'T have a source of fair, unbiased, objective news in this counry. And most Americans don't seem to know the difference between an entertainer and a journalist.
What's sad is that we even have to have sites like Media Matters, FactCheck and PolitiFact to try to sort out the lies the media panders daily.
As Americans, we need to truly start speaking out about the nonsense - and turning off the TV. As long as we watch, listen or buy the crap, we've contributed to it.
Stewart had a beat down saved up, but he took it out on the wrong guy. He even said so himself to Cramer "You have become the face of this, and it's unfortunate because you're not the face of this." Cramer's not responsible for CNBC, or for the market meltdown. His popularity isn't from a journalistic stance, it's because he has an entertainment show about stocks. The TDS interview was awful to watch because Jon Stewart wailed on Cramer for CNBC, and Cramer was talking about his Mad Money show. It was a disconnect. He basically took the beat down that Stewart had created for Rick Santelli.
I think maybe Cramer is being deliberately misleading because he surely must understand that no one is trying to blame the media for creating the mess we are now in. However, we ARE blaming CNBC for contributing to it because they did absolutely nothing to ensure that their reports were accurate or even based on fact. He carefully avoids that point.
They did very little to check the accuracy of what they were being told and essentially acted as a cheerleader for the Wunderkinder who were in the process of taking down our economy. The function of the media is to do the digging that makes relevant information available to the public. They totally failed, not from ineptitude, but from having no desire whatsoever to do their job.
As Zucker made painfully obvious in his defense, the whole purpose of CNBC is entertainment, not reporting.
It is not surprising at all that Cramer packpedals, since that is what is expected of a media figure with a big ego (who wants to stay atop the news). However, Cramer is essentially correct in both accounts: (1) that the media should have done more to see problems brewing, and (2) that it's naive to make them a foremost target of attack (otherwise known as "don't kill the messenger"). While both Stewart and Cramer are left-leaning Democrats, it is fair to say that Cramer advocates a more laissez-faire system (of legalizing crack and hookers, as Cramer stated on Stewart's show) and Stewart sees the guardians of the people (big government, big media, big Wall Street) as needing to protect the public by nature. Fact is, under the previous set of rules, we've proven that too much freedom leads to too many abuses. On the flipside, nobody forced the public to invest: (1) in their 401-ks, which are optional (2) in homes they could not afford, and (3) in Jim Cramer's stock picks. And that is the weakness in Stewart's arguments. Which gives Cramer an open door to carry on the feud with Stewart, which in turn does little more than to boost each of their ratings.
Again, if you are hunting a hot stock. I am very sad for you if you turn on the tv to do it.
I'll digress on this one. Drama, weak copy, drama.