Jim Cramer (Mad Money CNBC) vs Jon Stewart

[StoopTroup]

For those of you who haven't watched this...

Watch it and discuss.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/index.jhtml?episodeId=220533

Also...for those of you who know about markets and 401Ks...

These *******s who knew they were endangering our 401Ks and investments....shouldn't folks like JP Morgan who manage our funds be responsible when they don't offer one safe investment in the plans they manage? Shouldn't you be able to pull your investments and stow them in something extremely low risk? Especially when even the Republican President GWB was trying to end pensions in this Country in lew of 401K plans? Why the hell we I ever trust anyone in the Republican or Democratic (for that matter) in protecting my future in retirement?

It's dispicable IMO.

[SoonerTroll]

Jon Stewart sucks, that is all i have about that...

[StoopTroup]

Jon Stewart sucks, that is all i have about that...

Then you didn't watch the episode did you Troll?

And why would you take it to the level that he sucks when what I'm saying is...You, Your Parents and anyone who works for a living were lied to and now have lost tons of their hard earned money to a bunch of self-deprecating thieves?

OK...you don't like Jon Stewart...but you think the premise of what he's discussing in the above thread sucks?

Are you serious?

[NormanPride]

That was brutal. Major props to Cramer for actually showing up on what he knew was an interview designed to eat him alive. Still, he's a buffoon, and I'm glad he was exposed. It's rare to see Jon that mad, especially at a guest. I think he was nicer to the crossfire guys!

[OhU1]

I have this bookmarked to watch when I'm not at work. I understand Stewart really took Cramer to task and Cramer was all but groveling and even “about to cry” according to what I’ve read so far.

I've read some of Cramer's books and used to listen to his radio show. (the TV show is unbearable because of all the shtick and noisy sound effects) There's no doubt the guy knows a lot about trading. His role as a voice for the public and as someone you should listen to for financial advise I have a problem with.

Carmer has skirted the line on ethics enough times to warrant a healthy mistrust. Also Cramer will often plug a stock only to claim he warned everyone not to buy it after the stock tanks. No person can know all the stocks in the stock market. Cramer knows an impressive number of stocks but his hubris is extreme that he claims he can make credible buy and sell recommendations off the cuff as he does.

[badger]

I wouldn't have applauded at everything the Daily Show audience did, but as Jon has said in the past when his audiences applaud everything he says, "The tickets are free."

(he said that when he was debating John McCain)

I think, perhaps, that while I appreciate someone calling out the financial "advisers" on national television for their oversight in anticipating the financial situation of now, he should have saved this conversation for a different environment... a comedy news show, perhaps, is not the most fair area to confront someone on this issue... but hey, look at all the press this has gotten so far?

For example, last time Jon had a problem with a national media hack, he went on THEIR show, not his own. Here is the infamous video of this.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/aFQFB5YpDZE&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/aFQFB5YpDZE&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[StoopTroup]

Badger...

I would agree with you about the "Comedy Show isn't the best place for this" however...as Jon stated...it seems the National Media wants to sit there and report a much different scenario as to why all this happened. I'm not saying Jon and his Staff are 100 % right in their assessments...just right in calling out CNBC. Cramer is just the fuse Jon used to light the bomb he's dropping on CNBC Bosses.

The other thing is that Jon has come under fire more than once off the air for his views and really...it's mostly a schtick filled with enough current events to keep people interested and I like to feel that it makes some folks think about stuff they might just blow off just as Soonertroll did.

Anyway...I sure hope a few folks go to prison...Madoff will hopefully go away and anything he has left will hopefully be dispersed back into the hands of competent people.

The market seems to be recoverying a little...but I still don't trust any of them.

The Daily Show is replaying the show on Comedy Central as we speak.

For those of you who can watch...enjoy.

ST

[fadada1]

got some info about cramer (not personal info) from one of our members who manages a mutual fund. said cramer is incredible intelligent and knows what he's talking about. HOWEVER, since he's been his MSNBC show, he simply doesn't do the research needed to make most of his claims. in other words, this show is entertainment and advice should be taken with some caution (or a TON of caution).

that being said, jon stewart clobbered him last night... and rightfully so, imo.

jon stewart and steven colbert are the best two interviewers on TV. PERIOD. it's not because they make people look stupid, which they do, it's becuase they ask real questions and don't back down. those two are 100X the journalists/interviewers that matt lauer and the like think they are. even more so, stewart and colbert are smarter than just about anyone else on TV that actually conduct interviews.

just my $.02

[OUMallen]

I kinda felt bad for Cramer, and here's why: he got called to task for ALL of CNBC. Most rational investors understand that a Cramer may be educated, but has a very strong chance of being wrong. Stewart was largely attacking all of CNBC about their coverage of the meltdown and how they kept saying over and over that certain companies were OK, the economy was OK, etc etc., only for us to shortly thereafter find that companies X, Y, and Z all folded and proved to be investment sinkholes.

Now, Cramer was the one that had the balls to go on Stewart, and Stewart, I thought, sort of held him to an unfair standard as representative of all of CNBC. As Cramer said, he just has one writer, and it's his nephew, and that's it.

I usually love Stewart, but I felt he was a little unfair in this one.

[mdklatt]

he should have saved this conversation for a different environment... a comedy news show, perhaps, is not the most fair area to confront someone on this issue

While the rest of the "news" media has degenerated into a bunch of howler monkeys screeching and flinging their **** at each other over the past decade or so, The Daily Show and to a lesser extent The Colbert Report are the only ones willing to call them on their bull****.

Is NBC going to call BS on CNBC like Stewart did? Hell no, they just paraded Jim Cramer around on the Today Show and Martha freakin' Stewart this week.

[Frozen Sooner]

Heh. And amazingly enough, with Martha Stewart and Jim Cramer on the same show who'd guess it was MARTHA who did time for securities improprieties? :D

And yes, I stole that from Colbert.

[SoonerTroll]

Then you didn't watch the episode did you Troll?

And why would you take it to the level that he sucks when what I'm saying is...You, Your Parents and anyone who works for a living were lied to and now have lost tons of their hard earned money to a bunch of self-deprecating thieves?

OK...you don't like Jon Stewart...but you think the premise of what he's discussing in the above thread sucks?

Are you serious?

Of course i did not watch the episode, but i did watch the clip. I said JON STEWART sucks, not what he said. How could you get it wrong it was typed?!?

P.S. Cramer did not take your money, if you actually watched Mad Money for anything but entertainment i think you are also partly to blame...

[mdklatt]

P.S. Cramer did not take your money, if you actually watched Mad Money for anything but entertainment i think you are also partly to blame...

Since the system is all one big circle jerk, anybody who bought into the nonsense of DOW 36000 and all that other crap ****ed it up for everybody. That was Stewart's point. Cramer and all his buddies in the financial media are responsible for trying to sell a pantload to everyone. And they were either directly complicit because they knew it was a pantload and wanted to take the money and run, or they should have known it was a pantload with a little due diligence.

[NormanPride]

This interview kind of frustrates me in many ways. 90% of Jon's stuff is pretty throwaway material, but every once in awhile we get a gem like this. It's a pity that it only lasted 20 minutes, and so little was accomplished.

[Scott D]

jon stewart and steven colbert are the best two interviewers on TV. PERIOD. it's not because they make people look stupid, which they do, it's becuase they ask real questions and don't back down. those two are 100X the journalists/interviewers that matt lauer and the like think they are. even more so, stewart and colbert are smarter than just about anyone else on TV that actually conduct interviews.

just my $.02

probably has more to do with the fact that they aren't "traditionally trained" journalists. So they don't need to *****foot around out of fear of losing contacts.

[Chuck Bao]

I think the interview was great. Jon Stewart got to the heart of the matter and Jim Cramer admitted repeatedly that Stewart was right. I appreciate this degree of candor even if it comes disguised as semi-comedy on the Comedy Channel.

With that being said, I highly doubt that media coverage of the stock market will change one bit. The markets are irrational and extremely short-term trading oriented, the latest best example is this last week. Media coverage of irrational behavior will be irrational.

I’ve mentioned before on another thread where my stock market analysts are under huge pressure to go along with short-term trading themes and justify it by long-term fundamentals. This whole idea is fail and my analysts see that and refuse to go along.

The sad fact is that CNBC has huge influence on the market and they get analysts on to justify short-term trades based on very contrived or irrelevant long-term valuation basis. Who in their right mind would listen to some analyst talk about the average recession duration and the fact that the stock market looks ahead so many quarters anyway?

Cramer talked about the management lying through their teeth on his program and how he couldn’t call them on it. The answer is simple. Just get analysts worth their salt on the show and let them offer counter arguments and list their set of assumptions. Cramer is a bit full of himself if he thinks that he is going to go against the market or the herd instinct. But, CNBC can always find a few contrarians to go against the herd and possibly do everyone a favor in picking out what should be obvious.

I’m not so sure some investors would actually want point – counter point and would just tune it out. At the end of the day, people tend to be lazy and want it painted black or white.

But, I love this debate.

Maybe it is indeed fitting on the comedy channel.

[A Sooner in Texas]

Jon Stewart owned Cramer. And he gave Cramer every opportunity to respond, but Cramer pretty much rolled over and wimped out. As far as The Daily Show perhaps not being the best venue for such an interview, it's just as viable as any other news show. It may be a "fake news" show, but Jon Stewart has established himself, even before this, that he's a great interviewer and isn't afraid to go for the jugular.

[StoopTroup]

Of course i did not watch the episode, but i did watch the clip. I said JON STEWART sucks, not what he said. How could you get it wrong it was typed?!?

P.S. Cramer did not take your money, if you actually watched Mad Money for anything but entertainment i think you are also partly to blame...

Don't be a wise *** with me.

If you can read...I also asked a few questions which you didn't respond too.

The way you typed a little one line blurb that someone sucks and then overlooked what I was trying to get discussion on...well it was a serious attempt at discussing what has occured over the last few weeks in the finanacial markets.

If you wanted to start a Jon Stewart sucks thread...you could have.

Go suck an egg.

[StoopTroup]

I think the interview was great. Jon Stewart got to the heart of the matter and Jim Cramer admitted repeatedly that Stewart was right. I appreciate this degree of candor even if it comes disguised as semi-comedy on the Comedy Channel.

With that being said, I highly doubt that media coverage of the stock market will change one bit. The markets are irrational and extremely short-term trading oriented, the latest best example is this last week. Media coverage of irrational behavior will be irrational.

I’ve mentioned before on another thread where my stock market analysts are under huge pressure to go along with short-term trading themes and justify it by long-term fundamentals. This whole idea is fail and my analysts see that and refuse to go along.

The sad fact is that CNBC has huge influence on the market and they get analysts on to justify short-term trades based on very contrived or irrelevant long-term valuation basis. Who in their right mind would listen to some analyst talk about the average recession duration and the fact that the stock market looks ahead so many quarters anyway?

Cramer talked about the management lying through their teeth on his program and how he couldn’t call them on it. The answer is simple. Just get analysts worth their salt on the show and let them offer counter arguments and list their set of assumptions. Cramer is a bit full of himself if he thinks that he is going to go against the market or the herd instinct. But, CNBC can always find a few contrarians to go against the herd and possibly do everyone a favor in picking out what should be obvious.

I’m not so sure some investors would actually want point – counter point and would just tune it out. At the end of the day, people tend to be lazy and want it painted black or white.

But, I love this debate.

Maybe it is indeed fitting on the comedy channel.

Good Post Chuck. Thanks for chiming in.

Many of you have valid points.

I was amazed that Cramer came on the show. Whether or not he did or didn't fair well on the show...his stock went up in my mind for even facing the loaded gun.

[12]

Clearly, Stewart wants to break out of "comedy."

[Crucifax Autumn]

Stewart's been out of comedy for quite some time. There aren't any jokes on that show, just news shown from a rather different angle that shows the ridiculousness of politicians and public figures, resulting in comedy.

Outside of some fully independent news sources this show has more actual "news" than any network news and probably more than the idiots that have 24 hour news cycles.

[Ike]

Personally, I think comedy central is the exact right place to have 'debates' like this...Because the absolute best comedy out there is something that first makes you laugh, and then makes you think. And in that respect, I think the daily show does a pretty good job of at least getting people to think about the news coverage they do get and to wonder why it isn't better.

[Howzit]

I kinda felt bad for Cramer, and here's why: he got called to task for ALL of CNBC. Most rational investors understand that a Cramer may be educated, but has a very strong chance of being wrong. Stewart was largely attacking all of CNBC about their coverage of the meltdown and how they kept saying over and over that certain companies were OK, the economy was OK, etc etc., only for us to shortly thereafter find that companies X, Y, and Z all folded and proved to be investment sinkholes.

Now, Cramer was the one that had the balls to go on Stewart, and Stewart, I thought, sort of held him to an unfair standard as representative of all of CNBC. As Cramer said, he just has one writer, and it's his nephew, and that's it.

I usually love Stewart, but I felt he was a little unfair in this one.

Not me. Not in the least. I watched Cramer's smug body language and braggadocio on flaunting the system in the clips shown contrasted with his contrite body language and answers, and he obviously knew he had been caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

Stewart is hit and miss for me, but he nailed this one, along with nailing Cramer to the wall.

[StoopTroup]

Stewart's been out of comedy for quite some time. There aren't any jokes on that show, just news shown from a rather different angle that shows the ridiculousness of politicians and public figures, resulting in comedy.

Outside of some fully independent news sources this show has more actual "news" than any network news and probably more than the idiots that have 24 hour news cycles.

So many folks have appeared on The Daily Show as Jon's Reporters who really are trying to just get exposure into other things. Hey it worked for Jon...why shouldn't it work for them? When you have a popular show...stuff like that's going to happen. Since the writer strike...the comedy has seemed to flounder. The reporter segments gave the show some variety. They should probably work more on that stuff.

[Rogue]

Mmmmm. Samantha Bee.

I think Howzit hit one the reason that I think Cramer deserved the woodshed beating he got. Jon is telling him that his show isn't very good and he could use the bully-pulpit to shed some light on the type of robbery that he himself described in the clips Jon used.

It's time the brotherhood of greed was broken up to let the "free" market act naturally for awhile.

See, I buy this. I liked Stewart's point about America's best product being hard work.

[StoopTroup]

Yep. There were some pretty good things thrown around in such a short time in that interview. It deserves more than one look IMO.

[Howzit]

Mmmmm. Samantha Bee.

I think Howzit hit one the reason that I think Cramer deserved the woodshed beating he got. Jon is telling him that his show isn't very good and he could use the bully-pulpit to shed some light on the type of robbery that he himself described in the clips Jon used.

It's time the brotherhood of greed was broken up to let the "free" market act naturally for awhile.

See, I buy this. I liked Stewart's point about America's best product being hard work.

If I had to pick my favorite sentence it would be "It's not a ****ing game."

Too many of these greedy bastards use the market, which is mostly funded by average people like us just trying to get by and have something for retirement, as a playground.

AND, how times did Cramer use his show as a vehicle to short sell? My guess is a bunch.

So, for the Cramer getting a raw deal deal, BS. He should be investigated further.

[Chuck Bao]

If I had to pick my favorite sentence it would be "It's not a ****ing game."

Too many of these greedy bastards use the market, which is mostly funded by average people like us just trying to get by and have something for retirement, as a playground.

AND, how times did Cramer use his show as a vehicle to short sell? My guess is a bunch.

So, for the Cramer getting a raw deal deal, BS. He should be investigated further.

Maybe I'm misreading the interview or I'm misreading you. I thought the key point was that Cramer didn't recommend short-selling the market nearly enough or expose the shenanigans and outright falsehoods. In effect, he didn’t cover anyone’s back.

What’s to investigate? Unless he was front running his on air recommendations.

We had this problem on the Thai stock market several years ago. One of my former colleagues was notorious for appearing on TV and aggressively recommending stocks. Before she did that, she would email her clients before hand and tell them exactly what stocks she would be recommending. The TV show was on air after the market opened and there was enough speculation ahead of her TV appearance and on air recommendations that it became pretty obvious with immediate spike in share price and immediate profit taking as she said the words. Thankfully, they moved the TV spot ahead before the market opening.

The fact that some many Americans now have there retirement funds tied up in the stock market does pose a dilemma. I can see where some people are very angry with losing a substantial portion of their life savings in what they were undoubtedly assured were pretty safe investments.

Hell, my granny once called me on it, saying that someone at her church said that the stock market isn’t any better than Las Vegas and a gambling den. I responded that the stock market is a way that long-term investors can receive higher yielding returns and participate as shareholders in good, quality companies. More importantly, stock market investments in developing countries, such as Thailand, help facilitate an efficient and useful flow of capital, creating the opportunity for a better life for many hundreds of millions of people. At first there were the Asian dragons and then the Asian tigers. The Asian economic miracle not only changed the economic prospects but ushered in political change as open and democratic societies as well.

Now, we are in reverse and I get the anger. I don’t get the idea of shooting the messenger, who calls it as he sees it. I get a lot of hate emails and it is always generated by stock downgrades. Nobody should have ever promised anyone that stock prices don’t go down as well as up.

[NYC Poke]

How can anyone feel bad for Cramer? Stewart showed clips of Cramer essentially admitting to market manipulation.

[Crucifax Autumn]

He basically says in the clip where he's talking about Apple that he did some manipulation in regards to AT&T and another phone company, can't remember which.

He's a first class a-hole who uses the excuse of being "business entertainment" as cover for all his bad calls and lack of truth. PRoblem is he's on CNBC so he can't try and be John Stewart and say it's "fake news".

I do have to say that everyone here seems to miss that Stewart isn't really attackiing Cramer but CNBC and all the other news outlets that just sat back playing cheerleader and encouraging people to buy up stock.

He says pretty clearly that what he expects is that after these reporters interview a CEO that they should actually do some investigative reporting to determine if the CEOs are being truthful or just trying to drive up their stock.

[Chuck Bao]

He basically says in the clip where he's talking about Apple that he did some manipulation in regards to AT&T and another phone company, can't remember which.

He's a first class a-hole who uses the excuse of being "business entertainment" as cover for all his bad calls and lack of truth. PRoblem is he's on CNBC so he can't try and be John Stewart and say it's "fake news".

I do have to say that everyone here seems to miss that Stewart isn't really attackiing Cramer but CNBC and all the other news outlets that just sat back playing cheerleader and encouraging people to buy up stock.

He says pretty clearly that what he expects is that after these reporters interview a CEO that they should actually do some investigative reporting to determine if the CEOs are being truthful or just trying to drive up their stock.

CNBC doesn't need to do investigative reporting. There is a market out there and there are plenty of contrarians or at least people willing to express a healthy dose of skepticism. There are a lot of people who have done their homework and know what they are talking about.

CNBC is required viewing and, on balance, I think they do a pretty good job, at least for now. It is much, much better than six-nine months ago when they had some people on who were talking about buying banks. That is the main reason I’ve been saying don’t do that. Yeah, that shtick is getting old.

The last time I watched Cramer he was attacking some of the bear funds as failing to deliver in a bear market. He even called on the SEC to investigate. Maybe he has a point. How hard is it for a bear fund to deliver when equity markets globally were down about 50% last year?

My point is that he clearly has the balls and the knowledge. He could be more focused on the message, though.

[NYC Poke]

Good points, CA. What Stewart is doing here -- and has been doing for years now -- is media criticism, particularly that of the news media. For years TDS has been poking fun at the "money bunnies" on the financial shows. Just like when he confronted Tucker Carlson, it wasn't so much Tucker Carlson Stewart was going off on, but how poor of job televised news does at reporting the news.

Incidentally, you mentioned how since because Cramer is on CNBC, he couldn't really call himself a comedy or entertainment show. Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo dug into NBC's org charts and learned that CNBC does not report up through NBC News. It reports up to NBC Universal, as does, for example, Bravo. Perhaps not coincidentally, popular shows on Bravo are The Real Housewives series, which glorifies crass materialism, and Flipping Out, featuring a guy who makes (used to make?) his living flipping houses in Southern California.

[SCOUT]

Incidentally, you mentioned how since because Cramer is on CNBC, he couldn't really call himself a comedy or entertainment show. Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo dug into NBC's org charts and learned that CNBC does not report up through NBC News. It reports up to NBC Universal, as does, for example, Bravo. Perhaps not coincidentally, popular shows on Bravo are The Real Housewives series, which glorifies crass materialism, and Flipping Out, featuring a guy who makes (used to make?) his living flipping houses in Southern California.

It is the Consumer News and Business Channel. Bravo doesn't have taglines like:
"Profit from It"
"Fast, Accurate, Actionable, Unbiased"
"The World Leader in Business News"
I don't disagree that they glorify materialism, but they present themselves as a news station to guide people on the financials of this country. Stewart's criticism of Cramer and CNBC on that point was spot on.

[Crucifax Autumn]

CNBC doesn't need to do investigative reporting. There is a market out there and there are plenty of contrarians or at least people willing to express a healthy dose of skepticism. There are a lot of people who have done their homework and know what they are talking about.

CNBC is required viewing and, on balance, I think they do a pretty good job, at least for now. It is much, much better than six-nine months ago when they had some people on who were talking about buying banks. That is the main reason I’ve been saying don’t do that. Yeah, that shtick is getting old.

The last time I watched Cramer he was attacking some of the bear funds as failing to deliver in a bear market. He even called on the SEC to investigate. Maybe he has a point. How hard is it for a bear fund to deliver when equity markets globally were down about 50% last year?

My point is that he clearly has the balls and the knowledge. He could be more focused on the message, though.

Well, I personally think that if you're going to claim to be a financial news source you have to tell the entire story. You can't just report a bunch of unfiltered and probably mostly imaginary numbers without the benefit of context or without fully explaining those numbers and what they mean...or for that matter how strong an investment that company really is when you are largely giving advice to long-term investors. People in it for the long term need to know when a stock going up is only do to some short-sighted news like laying off a thousand workers causes a reactionary spike that's gonna erode when the overall weakness of the business model continues to drag a company down.

[StoopTroup]

Also...if you have a guest on your show and later find out they lied to you...

NEVER HAVE THE LYING MUTHER ****ERS ON AGAIN!

Just a suggestion. :D

[Crucifax Autumn]

Seems like pretty sound advice to me!

[47straight]

Is this the one where Stewart didn't play Cramer's advice to sell all stocks when they were like 40% above what they are now?

Or is this the one where Stewart plays clips of Cramer saying "your money is safe with Lehman Brothers," leaving out the fact that the specific question he was asked was about a deposit account in FDIC insured Lehman Brothers BANK?

[Crucifax Autumn]

Is this the one where Stewart didn't play Cramer's advice to sell all stocks when they were like 40% above what they are now?


That leaves out Cramer saying the opposite on another day and then something different yet again on another day, The schizo nature of his advice and the clowning instead of being serious were some of the ciriticisms as well.

[StoopTroup]

Is this the one where Stewart didn't play Cramer's advice to sell all stocks when they were like 40% above what they are now?

Or is this the one where Stewart plays clips of Cramer saying "your money is safe with Lehman Brothers," leaving out the fact that the specific question he was asked was about a deposit account in FDIC insured Lehman Brothers BANK?
There's a link to it...why don't you watch it.

[47straight]

There's a link to it...why don't you watch it.


I just wanted to know what complete blatant errors and falsehoods I was going to be fed before I watched it.

[NYC Poke]

Seriously, Cramer is on video admitting to illegal market manipulation. I dont' see why anyone would waste their breath defending him.

Unless hyour his defense counsel, in which case I can think of around 800 reasons per hour to waste your breath.

[47straight]

Seriously, Cramer is on video admitting to illegal market manipulation. I dont' see why anyone would waste their breath defending him.

Unless hyour his defense counsel, in which case I can think of around 800 reasons per hour to waste your breath.


Nope, didn't see that. But maybe you're more experienced in securities litigation than I. I just see Obama's little bitch boy doing a hatchet job on someone who dared question the government. You know, for questioning things. Like his stooges are saying the media should do.

Life can be pretty ironic.

[NYC Poke]

I do white collar defense work, so yes, I know something about it. But you really don't need to be an expert to notice that part.

Also, I don't think that he was going after CNBC merely for questioning Obama. I think he went after CNBC because of their disingenuous manner in which they chose to do so.

[47straight]

I do white collar defense work, so yes, I know something about it. But you really don't need to be an expert to notice that part.

Also, I don't think that he was going after CNBC merely for questioning Obama. I think he went after CNBC because of their disingenuous manner in which they chose to do so.

Will you point out to me his admissions as to the "illegal" part?

And I guess we'll have to disagree on the second thing. This wasn't brought up - period - until Cramer made his statements.

[NYC Poke]

Will you point out to me his admissions as to the "illegal" part?

It's in one of the clips that Stewart shows. It's not of Cramer's show, and I'm not sure that I caught what it was for (I watched this on the internet at work). It looked like it was privately produced.

Anyway, Cramer discussed how he had spread negative information of dubious provenance about companies whom he was shorting. That's not a technical violation of securities laws, it's not just kind of illegal, it's not pushing-the-envelope illegal, it's clearly illegal. Cramer himself even acknowleddges that on the video.


And I guess we'll have to disagree on the second thing. This wasn't brought up - period - until Cramer made his statements.

Our difference of opinion in this is probably a reflection of how we view Stewart differently. You see him as Obama's cheerleader and nothing more. While I'll acknowledge that he's certainly liberal (far more liberal than me), he's been satirizing the television news media for sometime. Even the bombastic opening of his theme music and his flashy set are mocking the media.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Jim Cramer is my daddy.

[Crucifax Autumn]

It's in one of the clips that Stewart shows. It's not of Cramer's show, and I'm not sure that I caught what it was for (I watched this on the internet at work). It looked like it was privately produced.

Anyway, Cramer discussed how he had spread negative information of dubious provenance about companies whom he was shorting.


What's more, during those clips he says he'd never say that on TV. When they cut back to the live stuff Cramer looks like he just got caught banging Stewarts' wif on the dining table, turns kinda wussy, and says "it's on tv now".

Seems to me like someone who just let Obama's little cheerleader bust his *** on national TV.

A little theory I have. If you're gonna admit to illegal activity i confidence and don't want it on tv you should be wise enough to not videotape the admission!

This, if nothing else, is counter to all the people gushing about what a genius this so called "business entertainment" host is.