Let me see if I got this right. Jim Cramer – a liberal Democrat who voted for President Obama and has given tens even hundreds of thousands of dollars to Democratic politicians for their campaigns – criticizes strongly how Team Obama is addressing (or not) the economic situation. Jon Stewart of “The Daily Show” blasts Cramer. Jon Cramer explains precisely how Stewart misrepresents him and his record with sound bites taken out of context. So Stewart decides to have Cramer on his show.
His show. His studio. His format. And his team edits it all down to the five minutes they show the public.
Cramer – either foolishly or bravely or both – goes for it.
The press reports widely that Jon Stewart “slams… hammers” Jim Cramer on his show. From the Associated Press:
In an interview taped Thursday afternoon that went far beyond its allotted time, Stewart repeatedly chastised the “Mad Money” host and CNBC for putting entertainment above journalism. He also accused the financial news network of willfully ignoring corporate dishonesty.
For his part, Cramer disagreed with Stewart on a few points, but mostly agreed that he could have done a better job foreseeing the economic collapse. Cramer called himself a “fan of the show” and said his network was “fair game” to Stewart’s criticism.
Well. Take a close look at the two main lines of attack:
1) You put entertainment above journalism.
2) You do not investigate corporate dishonesty enough.
I have officially lost any and all… excuse what little respect for Jon Stewart I had left.
First – I find it odd that he criticizes CNBC for not doing something that may not entirely be its job. What is the purpose of “Mad Money”? Is it to engage in deep investigative work of the claims that corporations make in public? Theoretically there is an infinite number of things I “fail to do” each day. And precisely how – assuming they make the attempt – would Jim Cramer go about getting past the lies? Precisely which “corporate dishonesty” did Mr Stewart have in mind?
And if Mr Stewart faults Jim Cramer and CNBC for not doing something (like investigating corporate claims) might we not fault “The Daily Show” for not taking on President Obama and the Democratic led Congress (speaking of “political dishonesty”) the same way they took on President Bush and still the Republican minority in Congress? The Obama administration is providing mountains of good material for satire – and yet they barely nibble.
Second – and this is the more substantive criticism of Jon Stewart – he is trying to have it both ways as usual. “Put entertainment over journalism”. Excuse me – are we to understand that Jon Stewart is a journalist? That the purpose of “The Daily Show” is journalism? (And in what sense is Jim Cramer trying to be a journalist whatever that means in this context?)
When “The Daily Show” rips quotes out of context in order to make fun of someone… is that not putting entertainment over journalism? So when we accuse “The Daily Show” of dishonesty or bias or misrepresenting those they satirize can they reply “oh come on we’re just entertainers”? On exactly what basis does Jon Stewart have the moral and intellectual authority to “hammer” people for putting “entertainment above journalism”?
A year and a half ago my friend Chris Brady made precisely this point when Stewart waded into the whole “Crossfire” brouhaha.
My beef is that Stewart tried to have his cake and eat it too and he failed to understand that it is all about genre. JS brought his righteous indignation and challenged the two CF hosts to “stop the hate” because they were “hurting the country” by exacerbating the deep political divides in our nation. …
Stewart tries to be the funny man, claiming that he should not be held to the same standards as Crossfire and yet he wants to be taken seriously as well. A study of that election period has shown that TDS does contain as much news content as the other news programs. Is that an indictment of major network news? Yes, but it is clear that Stewart and his show have fostered their image as a source of humorous yet real information. John Edwards understood that clearly enough to declare his candidacy on TDS in that election cycle and now John McCain has as well. …
And then when Carlson challenges JS for not asking hard hitting questions of John Kerry when he had a chance to interview him, JS responded that my show is a comedy show, “we come on after puppets making crank calls!” …
Finally, when Carlson continued his critique of Stewart JS retorted, “How old are you? You are still wearing a bow tie.” In full disclosure I should point out that I, at times, wear a bow tie, but this is just childish on his part. Did it get a laugh? Yes, but if Stewart wanted to be taken seriously then he should not have engaged in cheap ad hominem attacks. Stewart wanted to “have his cake and eat it too.” He wanted to be funny and accepted as intelligent commentator all at once, yet he didn’t want to do the hard work of engaging in real debate. He is willing to press others until they press back and then out comes the one-liner. Zing!
Finally – let us notice that Jim Cramer had the courage to engage Stewart on his home turf. Where Stewart sets the rules and runs the whole show. Jim Cramer moreover was willing to admit his mistakes.
What mistakes – along with a host of other failures and distortions – is Jon Stewart willing to admit?
ADDENDUM (03/13/2009):
Mark Hemingway of the National Review has also chimed in. He is less kind toward Jim Cramer but no less critical of Jon Stewart. In his opinion if one watches the unedited footage of the interview Cramer “kicks Stewart’s behind”. But the final edited version gives a much different impression:
Earlier this week it seemed Stewart was in retreat. He downplayed his feud with Cramer, scurrying back to his I’m-just-a-comedian-schtick and mocking the dispute as “Basic Cable Personality Clash Skirmish ’09.” But from the moment it was announced that Cramer would appear on The Daily Show, it was obvious that Stewart was going to swing a club rather than try to be funny.
Stewart’s been having it both ways for far too long…
Read the whole thing here. You do not have to register.
When he attacks someone not in his home court – he presents himself as a journalist. But when the attacked push back – he is an entertainer/comedian. Do not confuse entertainer-Stewart with journalist-Stewart because he is better than that.
