(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.