The TV Zone

Well, sort of.

I do like to have catchily misleading headlines to get people to read this stuff.

In fact, on this morning's "Today Show," Jim Cramer did make what I believe to be his first public comments about last week's encounter with Jon Stewart. Meredith Vieira was de-briefing some members of the CNBC starting line-up about AIG, when she turned to Cramer, "I can't let you go without asking about..."

...that horrific debacle last week. (She didn't really say that - I did. Actually, it wasn't THAT bad for Cramer, though everyone else pretty much declared it to be career-ending; whatever.)

Said he, "it's naive and misleading to blame the media" for the current economic crisis.

"We weren't behind this. CNBC, in particular, has been out front on this," per a transcript from HuffPo. "I think there are people who bear so much more responsibility [than the media] that it's just wrong-headed -- the politicians, the regulators, the SEC, the lenders, the investment banks. ... It's just a naive focus, it really is Meredith."

He added that he didn't fight back because he was "taught to take the high road."

Right, Jim. Like "Mad Money" is the high road. (Sorry....I couldn't resist. That was uncalled for, Gay, entirely uncalled for.)

That was about it. There were no threats or declarations, like, "if I ever meet Jon Stewart in a dark alley," or "that guy Stewart's a dweeb anyway."

A shame: Nothing like having this thing continue on for a few more weeks. When or if I get a transcript/clip, will post.

(Jason DeCrow, AP)

Oh yeah, Stewart-Cramer has hit a raw nerve.

I think, in fact, said nerve has been carted away to recuperate. Last week's interview actually almost feels like one of those WWE brawls that spilled outta the ring, and into the audience. This is no longer about who won, or who lost - Stewart won, duh - but more about what Stewart's dismembering of the guy says about a whole range of civic issues that are vital to country and democracy.

At least if some comments I got on last week's post are any indication.

There's quite a range of opinion on this one, much of it focusing on the presumption that I missed the point of the interview. Little value in arguing that again - I didn't miss the point and you'll just have to take my word for it - but I do think it's important to clarify one overwhelming mis-characterization among some readers: That Jim Cramer is in some way representative of the failure of the news media to anticipate the debacle that has befallen the world's economy.

Let me now state this as clearly and as concisely as I possibly can: In no way, shape or form does Jim Cramer represent the print news media.

At all. Period. His failures, considerable though they may or may not be, have absolutely nothing to do with the way the rest of the (print) media has covered the U.S. economy and I can't imagine how anyone of sane mind or judgment could ever begin to conflate the two. Stewart certainly didn't make the link, the best I could tell, either.

The print reporters who cover finance - let me add to that, the ones that cover ANY subject - that I've known over the years are honest, dedicated, and hard-working. All of them, the ones I know or have known, got in this business because they cared about the truth, and the difficult craft of conveying the truth. They also care deeply about people, and how the actions of certain people - notably those in power - have a profound impact on other people - notably those without power. I've never known a reporter who piped quotes, or fudged the facts, or made up stories, or created fictions. I've never known one who didn't experience sheer agony over a story missed, or sheer joy over the story that perfectly captured one that he or she set out to capture.

And this notion that the print press somehow missed the economic debacle because it was "lazy" or full of "cheerleaders" or "full of itself" or "willfully stupid" or "incompetent" (those are not actual quotes from my comments, but they DO seem to represent a certain bias among some) is an outright falsehood.

I'll get off my high horse and go back to real TV subjects ("Lost!" "24!" "Celebrity Apprentice!") in a minute, but please allow this one last observation. In fact, the press HAS covered the housing crisis, and sub-prime loans mess, and the hedge fund danger and other stock market shenanigans. It has for years. Plug in the phrase "housing bubble danger" - or "sub-prime mortgages risks to the economy" - into the Nexis's search field, limit the years (let's say from 2003 to 2008) and you'll get so many hits that they run into the thousands. On the New York Times alone.

The print press has covered the economy RELENTLESSLY; it's been a nattering Cassandra on the subject for years, but because it didn't give the exact date and time of the collapse must now be lumped in with Jim "Boo Yah" Boy Cramer?

Oh, please.

Here's a thoughtful comment by Ashwin - and thanks to everyone for taking the time to write in - then please go to the jump for a just a few random examples of press coverage over the years...

"There had been concern about the stability of subprime mortages over a year before banks like Bear Sterns and Lehman Brothers collapsed. I have friends working in the lower levels of investment banks who were telling me how a beating was about to take place. Don't tell me that in 1+ years time there were no journalists with the intelligence and the savvy to understand subprime loans. It seemed as if as soon as the bottom fell out of the financial market, news reporters were coming out of the woodwork to tell us how subprime mortgages were garbage, how there had been insurances sold on these loans that were equally garbage, and how the whole house of cards could be simply explained. Where were all these people before the bottom fell out? People like Cramer..."

Continue reading "Stewart vs. Cramer: Round 3! " »

(AP/Jacquelyn Martin)

OK, I got some reaction to a post earlier this morning about the Jim Cramer/Jon Stewart encounter, and rather than respond to each and every one of the comments, let me address this thoughtful one from "Nick."

It seems to hit clearly on the central complaint -- that I entirely missed the point of the interview, and that my conjecture about the financial news industry also missing the larger story compounded my error.

Here's "Nick," and my reaction follows:

"Verne, you've seriously lost the plot on this one. You have completely misunderstood Jon Stewart. He is not a comedian; he is a satirist. CNBC looked down on Jon Stewart the same way that Tucker Carlson and Crossfire did and look where it got them both: labeled as the embarrassment of journalism.

"I echo Peter's sentiment above when you ask about the lack of comedy in last night's show. I mean, did you seriously think there was going to be anything funny about it after the host looked at the guest and said, full of fury, "this isn't a f****** game."

"You wanted comedy? Your attempt at self-defense comes off as bad taste. The only person you have to blame for your inexplicable inability to take Stewart seriously is yourself.

"Sounds like you need to read up on the comments your post has generated and do what Jim Cramer probably did last night: take a cold shower and figure out how you missed the boat.

"The idea that the entire financial news industry can wash its hands of this debacle because they were lied to as well (and didn't see much point at actually uncovering the truth) is exactly the irresponsibility that Stewart was fuming at. And irresponsible journalism in the face lying hedge fund managers and investment bank executives who deliberately manipulate their books and the market for their own personal gain IS complicity on the part of the journalists.

Good journalism is a tough job and we need now more than ever."

Thanks Nick and everyone else for taking the time to write....

Now here's my reaction:

First of all, I never implied, said, or asserted that last night's show was funny or was meant to be funny. Many millions of people have lost jobs, homes, pensions, and savings -- and perhaps even a future -- because of the actions of a number of people in the financial industry who deserve our condemnation now and forever more. And there should, perhaps even will, come a time when they have to answer for their transgressions before a court of law. Jon Stewart appropriately and accurately reflected the fury of an entire nation that has been screwed by their likes. There was nothing "funny" or "satirical" in that approach, and I can't imagine how anyone construed that I had said as much.

Second, Cramer is irrelevant. He's a showman -- a bells and whistles guy who does shtick to get a number. There are real reporters at CNBC -- Charles Gasparino and David Faber -- to name two, who have done very good work for this network. Cramer should not have been on last night; Rick Santellli who started this whole thing in the first place should've been. Or maybe Gasparino, who could have at least defended himself. Fact is, CNBC mishandled this horribly.

And third, reporters do report what people tell them, and they do report the facts, to the best of their ability, and they do draw conclusions from those. The reporters at the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times -- and my paper, too -- do a magnificent job in this difficult endeavor day after day. So, my rhetorical question: How did these dedicated professionals miss the biggest story of their lifetime? They reported the facts correctly, and they understood fully the implications of an ever-expanding market in various securities year after year. The word "bubble" became not merely part of their vocabulary but part of their daily professional lives. So, how did they miss the story? One reason -- the story was astronomically complex, and changed quickly -- and profoundly -- from one day to the next. The outcome was by no means clear. Another reason -- they didn't have all the facts, through no fault of their own. Banks -- for example -- hid vast amounts of junk loans on their balance sheets until they were forced to reveal them. An Edward R. Murrow -- to use one writer's example -- couldn't have uncovered that garbage. Neither could an army of highly trained and responsible financial reporters. Neither, it appears, could the former chairman of the Federal Reserve. Maybe Stewart should have him on the show.

Let's get one thing straight on this subject, may we? Jim Cramer did not come out looking as bad as all the insta-pundits seem to think he did. Honestly, from this insta-pundit's perch, the guy did OK in the face of Jon Stewart's barely contained fury for the most part.

What Cramer didn't come out doing -- to his detriment -- was fight. "I'm a big fan!" Huh? -- you are?! After you got the cr*p kicked out of you on "The Daily Show" all week? What does it take, Jim, to become an enemy of yours? Honestly, that smacked of wussy all the way. If there's a takeaway from this interview, and one that may haunt ol' Mister Mad Money from this day forward, it may simply be that he chickened out.

And yup, Stewart also had him by the short ones when he pulled up an old grainy clip of Cramer talking to someone -- unidentified -- about short-selling on Thestreet.com, with the soundbites suggesting that it was part of the problem and that this former hedge fund guy (turned commentator) named Jim Cramer was part of the problem as well.

Yeah, it looked bad at that moment -- sort 'o like when Randy Orton takes down the Undertaker. Or whatever...

But...was Stewart -- as he certainly seemed to be doing -- suggesting that Cramer was shorting all the stocks he touted on "Mad Money?" And if that was the suggestion, then why didn't Stewart come right out and say so? Cramer had an opportunity to push back on that one, but refused to. Too bad for him. That's what you call "an opening."

But...much of the discussion on short-selling and hedge funds was also financial arcana and I'm fairly certain that there was no one out there last night who sat back and said to him or herself, "by Jeez, Cramer's no better than Madoff....He's the reason for the debacle."

Cramer's defense, and not an entirely unreasonable one throughout the night -- that people lied to him.

Stewart was very good, and below I've posted what I think is the best part of the whole interview -- "When I see that I can't tell you how [frakking] angry I get because it tells me, you all know..." Populist rants play well in this kind of market, but I'd ask Jon: Did you ever read the Wall Street Journal, or the Times? Howabout Fortune? Or the dozen or so big trades like Institutional Investor that covered the Street as well, and are equally -- in fact, more influential than CNBC and poor little Jim Cramer?

Did they call the financial debacle a month, a year, ahead of time?

In fact -- guess what! -- they didn't. So does that mean WSJ is guilty as well, or the Times? Surely they knew about the short-sellers and hedge funds guys as well. So...? That's the logical extension of Stewart's argument, and of course it's an absurd one because they covered the bull market too, and they (often) reported the lies of CEOs too. Not their fault -- reporters report what people tell them.

And one more thing before I bore you, dear reader, into an absolute stupor. Why go after Cramer? He's a tiny target -- why not get the real culprits on? The ones that really truly deserved Stewart's well-founded fury?

Because -- of course -- they'd never come on, so Jim Cramer will have to do.

Still...great television last night, and kudos to both of 'em. More kudos, though, to Stewart.

You know about that war between Jim Cramer and Jon Stewart, right?

Of course you do. Now, more tales from the front. Last night's show, JS went on "The Hills" and "Dora the Explorer" to argue his case against CNBC and Booyah Boy, Jim Cramer.

Go to the clip and scroll up to about the eight-minute mark OR WATCH THE WHOLE DANG THING. It's funny.

Now, hear this: Cramer is going to be on tomorrow's "Daily Show." The booking was announced late yesterday. To which I say: Well it's ABOUT TIME. CNBC has done a pretty amazingly poor job handling this PR one-man-destructo brigade by the name of Jon Stewart. Cramer's probably the channel's single biggest name - no, take "probably" out - and night after night, Stewart has thrown the wrecking ball at him. CNBC's, and Cramer's response, has been sad and tepid. The damage to Cramer, so far, is pretty extensive. Let's see how Jim handles this booking tonight...

And, let's hope CNBC doesn't pull the plug on THIS appearance too...

The war continues!

Did you see last night's "Daily Show?" Then, say no more, and just click on this clip...it's Stewart on Jim Cramer again. Meanwhile, this clip played on "The Today Show" this morning -- while Jim was watching on a split screen.

Battered Cramer's response: "He's [Stewart] a comedian..."

Another thing you gotta watch...this is all over CC's website, from last night's "Daily..."

Apparently, Rick "I'm Mad as Hell and Not Going to Take This Anymore" Santelli pulled out of an appearance on the show, and Dave Letterman proved that if someone pulls out on you, it's even better than if they turn up.

Gives you high-dudgeon material for days...

Is this rant fair? Probably not entirely fair, but who cares? (And see my note in the comments section below for further illumination on the "not fair" biz.) It's still great television. This is a fourth-magnitude frak-up by CNBC: Imagine not letting Santelli on the show! CNBC has committed a sin of its own making - allowing someone else to define them. This is simply a devastating clip.

And I do love Stewart's kicker: "*&%$#& You!"

I fell asleep during Barack Obama's half hour commercial last night - during the tour of the soccer mom's refrigerator, if you're interested in the precise spot where somnolence over took my pre-election addled soul. BUT...I did happen to catch this interview on "The Daily Show."

If you missed, well worth watching.

Here's something to realize that you should realize that the Major Mainstream Old Media is not telling you: They've flatly determined, inside their hallowed offices, that Obama has won. It's over. It's not some sort of liberal bias, either, that you may have already ascribed to their motives, but pure 21st century science. The polls have this one over, from sea to shining sea.

The polls - much as some people would like them to be - are not wrong. This is not Dewey beats Truman or even Kerry Beats Bush in Florida (remember that exit poll flop four years ago?) My point is: Last night's interview felt, from where I sat, like an interview suffused with a sense of completion. Not arrogance. Just completion. That it was over. And he had won. And Jon Stewart knew he had won. There was a whiff of this in Charlie Gibson's interview earlier in the evening. (Charlie even asked, as a door closer, the obligatory but irrelevant what O would do if he "lost;" oh yeah, sure, wink wink.)

This interview with Stewart is light-hearted, but touchs on important stuff, notably that old question about whether white voters will vote for a black candidate. O has some good quips, about that so-called "Bradley effect." Check it out...

It's funny, but depending on how things go today, this could be one of the last, if not THE last, major campaign interviews Hillary Clinton holds. And it will have been with...Jon Stewart. This one wraps her final-lap comedy show appearances (beginning, I suppose, this past Saturday, with "SNL.") These outings are a sine qua non for any wouldbe prez: Establish before the voting public, and most notably that part of the voting public public hardest to nail down (adults 18-34), that you've got a sense of humor. But even she admitted (joking) that this interview was "pathetic." Here's the clip - it's a two parter:

Okay, so who did YOU prefer last night - Colbert or Stewart (or Stewart or Colbert)? Understandably this can be a matter of personal taste driven (perhaps) by a whole range of factors, but I think I'm going with Stewart.

He was very good, as always (so was Colbert) but I think his barely disguised rage against the machine worked well, and reminded everyone that there is a strike and the last nine weeks or so weren't some extended vacation on a beach

His lines had real bite - a tearing-of-the-flesh bite that suggested it probably wouldn't be a good idea to have Stewart at the bargaining table during the next round of negotiations, should they ever resume.

It was good too because the guy had to establish his creds, tone, and passion immediately - no reason to pretend that nothing bad or untoward is happening in the TV industry. Scream out that something bad is happening; I always thought Stewart was best when he walked this edge, and then happily fell off into some swirling mosh pit of anger and outrage. He veered both sides of that edge, of course, but was especially effective when he hammered the Big Bad Studios. Just when he was doing his best Mr. Smith Goes to Washington rap (he'll no longer call this THE Daily Show but A daily show) he veered back instantly into the land of snark and snide, where Mr. Smith (had he ever really existed) would be as uncomfortable as a Calvinist in a casino.

Best line - though hard to single any out: This dispute," he explained to a studio audience, "is between the Writers Guild of America and the [producers' alliance] AMPTP, or NAMBLA." After that, not sure I'll think of producers the same way ever again.

This isn't to suggest that Stewart was all fire and fanaticism because of course he wasn't (and as soon as I find a YouTube clip to steal, I'll post.) But unlike Letterman or Leno (though much much closer to Conan) he instantly proved that this whole battle is actually about something other than just getting another late night diversion back on the air, or staff paychecks flowing again. It's also about settling scores and throwing punches. As a result, it felt more alive than those others.

And of course, he had a long monologue - which is all he's apparently gonna have for a while. When will the WGA complain about THAT?

Colbert was terrific but rarely declined to float out of character - smart decision because anything else would have felt false or unsteady. His interviews were best of the two (with the Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan and a Harvard labor expert), and I loved the way he sadly caressed the Chyron of "The Word" - empty of words because of the strike - like it was some dearly departed dead pet kitty.

The STRIKE, he wondered: "How does that affect ME?" Then, pointing to the blank teleprompter (also verbally depleted), "my understanding is that this little magic box right here reads my thoughts then it lays them up on the screen right there in the little words that I read. It's a labor saving device - that's how I understand how this works."

And guests? Stewart had a Cornell labor prof who told him he was actually a little conflicted about coming on because colleagues seemed to worry that his presence would hurt the writers' cause. So if they can't even get fussy profs, who will these two get as guests in the weeks/months ahead? A suggestion - they can always interview each other.

The writers' strike is leaving young viewers pining for their dose of fake news and daily snark from Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert.

Here's a little taste of what we used to be able to watch every night.

Daily Show: Fool Me Once

Daily Show: MSNBC Democratic Debate

Stephen Colbert: The Mini Threatdown

Stephen Colbert: Obama's Challenge

Stephen Colbert: The Word

Well, well, well - now THIS is interesting: Broadcasting Magazine is reporting that Jon Stewart has just a signed a contract extension that'll keep him at "Daily Show" through Dec. 31, 2010. Said the mag: "Stewart informed his staff of the news Thursday afternoon and a formal announcement is expected shortly. The length of the extension coincides with the 2010 expiration of David Letterman’s deal at CBS..."

And that, of course, is the interesting part. If Dave steps away, then, maybe...

But the bear who will prowling around the woods at this time will be - you guessed it - Mr. Jay Leno. After NBC rudely pushes him aside in 2009, my guess is he'll be able to go anywhere he pleases, including CBS. (Speculation has long included Fox and ABC...) But everyone has long expected a Jon-for-Dave swap when the time comes.
Meanwhile, here's more "Daily Show" news: Today, Comedy Central launched a new "Daily Show" website that'll include the show's ENTIRE "video history," dating back to 1999. (Stewart's hosted just under a thousand editions.) A press release says this will include "well over 13,000 high-quality clips..." ("High quality?" Ummm...no. So far, a disaster, in fact: The clips were a mess, hard to load and to play, and pretty much a waste of time all around; a spokesman blamed the glitches on a "tremendous amount" of drive-by traffic today. Hope they fix it soon...)