Yeah, Yeah, Stewart demolished Cramer...

[inbhirnis]

The big buzz on the telly here has been Jon Stewart (a comedian) doing what our journalists seem incapable of doing, taking to task the utter craven-ness of financial 'reporting' in the run-up to our great crash of 2008, where financial channels such as CNBC aired fawning interviews with CEOs and told everyone to buy, buy, BUY even when the whole house of cards was about to fall down.

It was perhaps CNBC 'journalist' Rick Santelli, who first attracted The Daily Show's attention when he ranted on the floor of the stock market about bailing out 'loser' mortgage holders (while delivering no such rant against the gazillions being poured in to keep the banks that provided the shaky mortgages in the first place - this is a terrific video clip - watch it all). From there, Stewart has been mauling one Jim Cramer of CNBC's "Mad Money" show (title really tells you all you need to know about the show), and this week, there's been something of a tit for tat over the airwaves between the two, culminating in Cramer's utter humiliation in the video above.

But - that's not what I wanted to memorialize in this post. Stewart rightly was praised for asking hard questions about these financial shows being basically stenographers for the industry, rather than starting from an investigative/skeptical point of view. They uncritically aired everything these captains of industry told them, and didn't research the rosy profit reports.

Now - the same media that is praising Stewart needs to turn the mirror on themselves and examine their stenography during the Bush years. Glenn Greenwald of Slate has an article that articulates it better than I can - he focuses in on the infamous Niger yellowcake incident and shows how our big name political journalists were/are just as uncritical as the financial twits at CNBC, allowing themselves to be used so obviously by the administration in the dissemination of the story. And, quite shockingly, there's a quote at the end of the piece where someone in the Washington Post says in so many words that their role is simply to regurgitate what they're told, and not to investigate since that might spark a debate - oh, the horror!

Dear media - your job is to investigate what the powerful are saying and doing, not simply to reprint it. I can get a press release for that. Your starting point should be skepticism and verification. Somewhere, Murrow is spinning in his grave.

Comments

[heypyro.livejournal.com]

Props to Jim Cramer though. He took it like a man. It takes balls to face the mirror that Stewart held up to him. Stewart's preparation was flawless.

[inbhirnis.livejournal.com]

True - it was quite brave to go on. I don't know quite what he hoped to achieve by doing so. He basically folded as the interview went on. I read somewhere that his ratings are in the toilet now. If only that was the case with Limbaugh....

[danlmarmot.livejournal.com]

It looked like Cramer was about to cry.

[inbhirnis.livejournal.com]

Yes - that zany, macho facade on his show crumbled pretty quickly. It almost had the feel of one of those communist era show trials/'rehabilitations', where the accused confesses the error of his ways - and then is led out to be shot.

[snowboardjoe.livejournal.com]

Definitely an interesting interview and not what I expected. I think it was a very sobering moment for Cramer and he actually handles himself well. He could have gone on some rant with Stewart to deflect the blows, but he pretty much sat there and took it. I think something within him realized this was deserved. Maybe he was actually honest with this, but not sure.

I'm curious about any comments Cramer made on his next show after this interview.

[inbhirnis.livejournal.com]

I haven't seen his show, beyond little clips, but it would seem a bit odd after his sparring with Stewart to go back and continue his bluster, complete with shouting and goody sound effects.

Ah - just found this (http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/03/13/cramer/) about his show the day after his Stewart appearance. Sounds like he's only mildly chastened, and that it will be business as usual for Cramer...

[dermfitz.livejournal.com]

Give Nick Davies's Flat Earth News a read - it's about this very issue, how much press reporting is the reproduction of press releases. It's depressing stuff but worth knowing.

[inbhirnis.livejournal.com]

Wish we had some interviewers like this over here:



--starts to heat up around 5:00. God - Bolton is such a war criminal.

[joebehrsandiego.livejournal.com]

You might find my (much more verbose :>)) comment below on "who really owns the media" of interest.

[joebehrsandiego.livejournal.com]

The news media - at least the part of it you're referencing here - might have a different off-the-record take on the first sentence in your final paragraph here.

Shall we take a look at who *owns* mainstream news media in the U.S.?

* Fox News, Fox Financial News: Rupert Murdoch ('nuf said there).

* The whole "NBC pantheon", including CNBC: General Electric.

* * CBS Network News: 60 minutes, 48 hours, CBS Evening News with Dan Rather, CBS Morning News, Up to the Minute: Westinghouse/CBS, part of the Westinghouse Electric Company, which is in turn part of the Nuclear Utilities Business Group of British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL).

* ABC Network News: Prime Time Live, Nightline, 20/20, Good Morning America: Disney/ABC/Cap Cities.

* CNN and HNL: Time Warner-TBS-AOL.

By inference, there are tie-ins with other media portals, and consumer products/services providers.

By the way, I got all this data (and there's much, much more) by Googling "who owns NBC" and getting:

http://la.indymedia.org/news/2003/04/47530.php

__________________________________________

My primary point? The main purpose of mainstream television news media - for those that control and deliver it, anyway - is *not* to "investigate the powerful". Quite the opposite: It's to protect and further enrich them, by delivering eyeballs and through that advertising dollars.

Their investigative pieces - think of fills the MSNBC schedule, aside from Keith and Rachel - typically do not focus on truly important topics ... except in times like these, when systemic changes (and, their non-news colleagues) force them to.

My other point, inferred from the "who owns media" link above: It's true folly to use any part of network TV - including the news part - for much more than entertainment purposes. If one wants "news news" in the old-school sense, one should go to the web and independent media. San Diego's own Voice of San Diego
(http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/; wiki context at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_San_Diego) is an excellent example.

My spologies for the soapboxing. But, this is a *very, very* important issue for all of us, and I wanted to put this additional backstory/context out there.

[inbhirnis.livejournal.com]

Yep - I guess my point of reference is having a great service like the BBC, which, although funded by the govt through a user fee nonetheless delivers hard-hitting documentaries that often cause the govt of the day some heartburn. Even in the days of Murrow in this country, though, it seemed like they sometimes had the balls to stand up to their corporate masters. Not so much now, it seems.

[joebehrsandiego.livejournal.com]

I remember hearing somewhere (can't remember the context) that when ABC/NBC/CBS had a monopoly on the airwaves, they treated their news operations as objects of status. As such, they weren't expected to contribute to the bottom line; in fact, they "lost" millions of dollars/year.

Now of course they're expected to generate cash, just like "American Idol".

Just curious: Is there something in the BBC "charter" that states the gov't. can't interfere with its editorial independence? That would be crucial, in my opinion.

Finally: You will probably find this Salon piece - "Why is Jim Cramer Shouting at Me?" - interesting.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/03/11/cnbc/

[inbhirnis.livejournal.com]

Re editorial independence: That would be a yes, apparently... (http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/policies/charter/)

[fba.livejournal.com]

Which is probably why every government complains about the BBC being unbalanced and bias - I think they'd all really rather like it to be their ministry of information...

[inbhirnis.livejournal.com]

Yes - when both Conservative and Labour govts of the last couple of decades have been exasperated by the BBC's reporting, that suggests the Beeb is doing something right - pissing off both sides...

[joebehrsandiego.livejournal.com]

Excellent - Thank you for posting this.

Critics can snark about the value of charters and mission statements, but they do provide some measure of accountability.

I tbink the main charter of the owners of the U.S. media establishment is: "make money".

[beeftenderloin.livejournal.com]

I watched the episode on Hulu. Wow, John was well studied. I think it is important to hear him say certain things and how Cramer responded. It was irresponsible and kinda only benefitted the money grabbing few. I think it will reverberate through the industry a bit and wake people up.