Yeah, depends on how you define "access," and whether it's sought for the sake of access alone. It's not a great sign when the "Money Honey" gets caught repeatedly stowing away on Citigroup's private jet, allegedly because she was having an affair with a higher up (quickly forced out), two years before Citi goes on the government dole, and the public faces of CNBC never saw it coming. I mostly agree with your larger points, and it's a problem with news in general. I watched the Today show recently, and maybe 5%, maybe less, was actually devoted to anything news-relevant. The rest was gossip and television/movie/celebrity coverage. Today makes a lot of money, though, so its formula has been replicated, and has spread to what should be hard news divisions. Cramer shouldn't be hosting an "entertainment" show about the financial industry, replete with literal bells and whistles; no such beast should exist. As Stewart put it, it's "not a f***ing game." Cool; it's online. "Someday We'll All Look Back on This And Laugh..." Thanks for the recommendation.
(i) Cramer said he honestly believed in Bear Stearns. What does he gain from propping up Bear, when it's going to fail? He's only going to lose more viewers. We will never know the intricacies of any said company. The best sources he can rely on are the people actually working inside the company, so if they are lying to him, what is he supposed to do? (ii) I really only get that kind of feeling towards Cramer's show which is just an hour of television everyday. Plus, they always have a disclaimer come up after he speaks. Otherwise, during trading hours, they are reporting financial news and have a bunch of panelists on to share what they think. They never claim to know what's going to happen. Disclaimer: I have never taken Cramer seriously. I think his unique style is entertaining at times, but it never got me to listen to the man.
I'm definitely with you on all this. The call-in show with Warren Buffet the other day was awesome. And I think the Squawk program in the morning, before the market opens, is good. I enjoy watching it, and they bring in lots of different people with lots of different opinions. CNBC is on all day long at our offices....unless it gets "pre-empted" by March Madness or mid-day baseball.
I only slightly disagree with this - he wasn't taking Cramer to the mat because he made a bad call and should be infallible, he wasn't suggesting that CNBC should be a tool that makes amateur market players professional grade, nor was he saying they should have seen everything coming...he was challenging them to be more substantial. That Cramer, et al, know about the semi- to fully unethical dealings that go on deep in the scene, but don't report on it. Different companies trying to falsely affect the market and manipulate it. Companies overleveraging. Stewart made a point - Cramer mentioned shenanigans and regulators and Stewart pointed out that CNBC, as one of only two business channels should be all over the shenanigans themselves. "CNBC could be an incredibly powerful tool of illumination" - but they choose to stay on the surface and cater to people that don't know any better. It's sort of like the political pundits that pretend as if members of Congress all individually sit in the Halls, listen to a bill proposal and vote on it based on their personal conscience and reasoning. As opposed to huddling up with their party members and conspiring who will vote how, and who will be compensated how if they're assigned an unpopular vote. "Give us your money, and let us handle it with absolutely no transparency into the real happenings behind the scenes" is what Stewart is frustrated with, and that CNBC is a silent partner in that atmosphere. Evan
dang missed this yesterday...luckily its on my dvr will watch after the rockets game today... personally cramer does get on my nerves a bit. should be fun to watch.
It might be better to watch the unedited interview off the website. Due to time, TDS edited edited out about 1/4 of the interview, including the part at the end where Stewart blames Cramer/CNBC for his mother losing her 401(k) [probably wisely, as it could be construed as over the top, but did put a broader human face on the discussion]; it and a lot of other fine points are not in the aired version.
Yeah the Buffet segment was great. If you ever get a chance to visit the shareholders meeting in Omaha, go for it. It's a great experience and listening to the man is truly inspiring. I'm perfectly fine with Squawk and any programming during market hours is fine with me. It's all the stuff after the closing bell that is just filler and fluff... Fast Money, Mad Money, Kudlow Report... Well, come to think of it, I usually can't stand Power Lunch because of Dennis Kneale. He comes off as a nerdy douche
I agree, it wouldn't be an issue if they were just reporting financial news. they are giving advice making commentary, so if they tell you to buy a company that turns out to be corrupt or tell you that everything is okay before the economy crashes, there is some responsibility.
The only person that actually offers buy and sell recommendations for particular companies is Cramer, which is why they have a disclaimer. There is a degree of responsibility here, but he's the only one that does it on the network. Most of the panelists on that will tout a specific company (very rare) will say something to the effect of "my fund is selling"... not an actual personal recommendation, per se.
THIS. I don't buy this excuse that they can't afford to offend people because then they would lose future access. They are CNBC. They are synonymous with Wall Street TV. Bloomberg isn't even close as a competitor, and Fox Business is an amateur johnny-come-lately. Jon is absolutely right to accuse them of complicity for knowing about these things that go on and failing to report about them. The point is that there is too much cheerleading and too little investigative reporting. Every other segment of news media has built a reputation on solid investigative reporting; why does the financial news industry have to be different and insist on sugarcoating everything? When you have this Stanford guy on TV just weeks before his ponzi scheme is exposed and all you're doing is fellating him asking him how great it feels to be a billionaire, that is the definition of reporting fail. You're telling me you couldn't at least have attempted to actually research this guy and ask him real questions about the nature of his business?
Bear Stearns bonds were investment grade the day that they declared bankruptcy. The people who make serious money rating investments also don't get it right. As I wrote above, the problem is that some individuals do not see CNBC for what it is (news, entertainment) and for what it is not (investment advice). As an analogy, do we hold Terry Bradshaw accountable for his game day picks? Someone might if they bet the ranch on them.
What I liked about the interview, and from the few dozen or so times before that I'd watched Mad Money, is that even though Cramer play-acts as a buffoon, there does seem to be an essential humanity/decency/intelligence to him. In the interview, even though wholeheartedly disagreeing, Stewart didn't attempt to take away from that. After reading the the Esquire profile Supermac mentioned above, in what the author could glean notwithstanding Cramer's ever-present PR minders, Cramer just seems that much more fascinating an individual: During his famous "They're nuts! They know nothing!" rant from a few months back, Erin Burnett [drool] thought he might be having a manic-depressive episode: Illustrative of his personality: On how he sees his role, as jounalist or entertainer: It ends: The "truth" he references is going on air and telling everyone to sell all their stocks if they needed the money in the next few years (referenced as rebuttal to Stewart's argument), and the "painful" blowback he received for it. Complicated guy.
Exactly. Also, Stewart's reflecting a lot of anger out there that there are two systems... one for the guy who works everyday and socks away a percentage of his pay for retirement and another intentionally opaque system that irresponsibly gambles with that money for short-term profit. The difference between Madoff and Wall Street is one of degree, not kind. The fact that nobody really understands (much less is able to explain) what goes on with all these exotic financial products created over the last decade or so is prima facie evidence that there is an insider system that developed to scam everyone else... and Stewart's point about running the clips from Cramer was that he knew what was going on, yet still pretended to talk to his audience as if everything was straightforward and the playing field was level. While this financial crisis has a political dimension, the fact is a small number of people got really rich by taking economic advantage and ruining the lives of a large number of people. In doing so, they acted out of supreme greed and against the best interests of their country and human decency. I'm somewhat amazed that there is not more even anger out there.
The people rating the investments are also the people insuring the brokerage houses. hmmmm. Terry Bradshaw doesn't have a catch line: "In Bradshaw we trust" as if Bradshaw is god. If Cramer's show is "entertainment" then why is he asking the public to trust him like god?
J.P. Morgan died 1913 Andrew Carnegie died 1919 Henry Ford died 1947 Our GDP has increased x80 since 1947
Yet Bradshaw certainly reports news (who's starting, who's injured, etc.) as well as delivering commentary/analysis. You are just smart enough to know the difference. You are also smart enough to know if Bradshaw says "Cleveland by a field goal" that is just as likely right as wrong. You are this smart, since you know the game of football. For those smart enough to understand investing, Cramer's stock picks are laughable and thus entertaining.
Thanks for showing pgabs the back of your hand -- PIMP SLAP Remember, pgabs is the guy that only yesterday was unaware of any Latinos living in Chicago. Yes, Chicago. Can you say 'no cred'?
