Below is a unique interview taken from the daily show with John Stewart and Jim Crammer a CNBC anchor. Beyond the individuals present, the ideas about the economic crises and various other themes listed below make for an interesting reflection. Copy and paste the following link to your browser and watch the three videos.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/125804-cramer-grilled-on-jon-stewart?source=article_sb_popular
I would like to hear your comments and reactions posted here on the blog. The themes I want you to focus on in your commentary are the following:
-Role of the Media-
Entertainment vs. Factual Reporting
Objectivity of Media
Where does the blame lie when we speak of the Economic Crises?
-Two stock market realities: Short term speculation vs. long-term investment
8 comments:
I think all the problems here stand really tall and out in the open now that the lid’s blown off and Jon kicked some ass, but their roots and the beginning reach very far and deep in our history. In regards to the question of entertainment versus factual reporting, the root of the problem is in what we’ve deemed as the flowing blood of life – money. Shows, channels, and the television itself only exist with the function of advertisement, and the formula is, if your show gets a lot of viewers, if your website gets a lot of hits, then advertisers want to flash their product in all those faces, and they’ll pay you to use your show or site as their billboard. How then can a television show ever really be artistic if its main mission, like EVERY BUSINESS, is to get more consumers in order to get more money? And by ‘artistic’ I mean a strong point of view, one that can stand independent or even against a purpose external to the belief. So if a man stands on television, no matter what he says, some part of him is doing it for the entertainment factor, for that’s the only way he can stand there. So despite the fact that objectivity does not exist, what is worse is everything on television is tainted with the purpose of entertainment.
Though it is entertaining, I believe Jon had to do this. That is, ripping Cramer a new asshole. “I understand you want to make finance entertaining, but it’s not a fucking game… and it makes me so angry… because it says to me, you all know.” Jon says that the economic crisis isn’t just a chance tidal wave, but that it was “ten years in the making.” And this is the highest advice Jon gives, that, yeah, “it’s easy to get on it after the fact,” but that CNBC’s role in media can act as “an incredibly powerful tool of illumination,” and, being as objective as anyone could, show what’s going on as the roots of these problems grow over time by reporting what IS happening, and digging the special knife only a mediaman can wield into the lies and shenanigans before the stage of the screen. That way, Jim Cramer doesn’t have to be a weatherman worrying about “good calls” and “bad calls”, but can just REPORT what Jon calls “the real market” and “the unreal market”, and show what is going on in that “back room,” just as Jon showed those rolls of Cramer talking business that were never aired.
This interview couldn’t have gone any better. Jon shed a lot of light. Of course a CEO will lie. So what job does that leave the mediaman? Jon reminds Cramer that he should redirect and expose their attempts to circumvent. But there’s the conflict. Is the mediaman a businessman himself, there just to make money too? With entertainment as his tool, his lie? This is what Jon is arguing, that when it’s about shit as serious as this, as about money, entertainment should give in at a certain point to what’s best for the audience. That’s why Jon brought up the question of who is CNBC’s audience. And according to who their audience is, what should they be promoting – short selling or long term investment – and what are they recognizing – the real or unreal market?
Jon’s right: “When is America going to realize that our wealth is in work?” And in that same fashion, a mediaman’s job like Cramer’s shouldn’t be weather “reporting”, or guessing the future and making up “what we should do’s”. That’s too easy, and too easy to fuck up. But the man that stands on television should also stand up and against the lying CEO he’s interviewing and “constantly point out the mistakes,” to use Cramer’s newfound words. Thank you Jon Stewart, for making the buggar realize.
Video #1:
An interview with Jim Cramer communicates about the economic crises in terms of whose “fault” it is. First let me begin that I think Jim Cramer initially holds a biased view of the entire situation. Jim Cramer, the host of CNBC’s Mad Money is also a former hedge fund manager. Prior to his work with CNBC, Cramer worked as a stock broker in Goldman Sachs' Sales & Trading department, and after Cramer’s employment with Goldman Sachs, he took advantage of the opportunity to begin his own personal hedge fund Cramer & Co.
Cramer mentioned on Mad Money that Rick Santelli at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange rants about “loser mortgage holder people who borrowed money from the banks, when they couldn’t afford to have it.” Santelli later claims on CNBC that the government is promoting bad behavior, through the issuing of the stimulus force and encouraging American’s to spend the money instead of saving it.
Cramer explains that the people are the so-called “fighters”, and then goes on the say that CNBC sells themselves as the financial experts. However, even though CNBC had access to the CEO’s they didn’t catch any of this going on. Thus, they are putting the blame on the wrong people.
I think this interview provides two very valid interpretations on the economic crisis. Before watching the video I didn’t have a definite opinion on where I stood with the economic crisis, and now after watching the video I am still somewhat unsure. I think it’s the bank’s responsibility to oversee whether or not people should be able to take out loans or get mortgages. If it is likely that these people will never be able to repay the money, then they should not be allowed the opportunity to do so. Likewise, it is also the people’s responsibility to make sure they are being smart with their money. I know people who are having their houses for closed because they were not careful with the way they spent their money. Now the entire country and world is suffering from these uneducated decisions.
Video #2:
The video touches on the fact that Jim Cramer creates a humor side to his show that negates the point he is trying to get across. Jon Stewart believes that there is a major gap between what CNBC advertises itself as and what they actually are. Stewart shows videos of Cramer which make him out to be a complete fraud and questions whether or not the reporting done on Cramer’s show, Fast Money, is really validated. I think Stewart has a great point, to me it seems that Cramer is playing with fire. He claims that he is trying to create a show that appeals to a younger audience; thus, he uses comedy to draw in their attention. However, if this is his way of going about it he MUST make sure he gets the facts straight and provides his audience with accurate and helpful information. To me, this topic is nothing to joke about. This topic deals with our everyday lives and whether or not we have the means to supply the basic necessities we need to survive. Stewart states, “The financial news industry is not just guilty of the sin of omission, but the sin of commission.” Thus Cramer is not helping the situation; rather he is making the situation worse by providing false information.
Video #3:
The importance of this video lies in the great line said by Stewart, “When are we (Americans) going to realize that our wealth is work?” Wall Street works so that they make profits, and at that…. Short term profits. Thus, the economic crisis came into effect. If America instead focuses its money and work for the future we are more likely to succeed and not see another crisis as such. The buys need to use their money wisely and not make purchases that they won’t be able to pay off in the future. The banks need to be careful as to who they lend money to, always considering whether or not it will be beneficial for the future. The buyers on Wall Street always need to consider the future. We as Americans need to be more future oriented instead of always living in the present.
Entertainment often compromises the integrity of factual reporting. The short attention span of the viewers places dramatics and gimmicks before Mad Money's promise of financial expertise. Ratings are priority not Kramer's journalistic integrity. Though I believe Kramer's show has blurred the line between news and entertainment, I don't think that is the root of the problem.
Stewart questions the objectivity of both Kramer and CNBC. How can theses financial experts dole out advice when they are the pawns of CEO's. The incriminating clips Stweart plays, reveal that Kramer both identifies as a CEO and that he conferences with these managers. Kramer cannot claim that he did not know he was being cheated by Leeman Brothers when the company claimed their stock was doing just fine. A journalist must place some boundaries between themselves and their news story or potentially corrupt advice will persist. It is unclear what exactly Kramer knew about the crisis and if he was in-cahoots with certain big market players. But the possibility that the media has been corrupted is frightening.
The role of the media is to present the facts to the best of one's ability in an objective format. Kramer's stock tips do not necessarily have to be correct for him to be an honorable CNBC financial advisor. He must present the facts to the best of his knowledge. Anything less is unethical.
The problem when it comes to situations like these is because of the differentiating realities of "what seems as, and what it IS." The role of media is to deliver news and entertainment simultaneously - which I feel like is a difficult task to do legitimately. No matter how hard a person may believe in the right thing to do, if they are offered to televise it, they will, but not without tricks up their sleeves to draw in a big audience.
Everything that people see in the media is built to entertain - so how are we supposed to actually BELIEVE in everything we see on the tube? This is why it was so great to watch Jon Stuart grill Jim Cramer. He was publicly questioning the expertise of CNBC - making them acknowledge the miscommunication and shenanigans they created with their "news reporting."
As a someone who is just a viewer and not a stock market hotshot I cannot say that I can pick a side, because I have no idea. If anything, The Daily Show just reconfirmed once again that in order to "play" in this world we have to know the rules, but not necessarily play by them and be really fucking unblind to what can be fed to us through media(entertainment/biased) reporting.
Personally I feel as though pointing fingers within the stock market is a useless endeavor now. The most common target is "greed on wall street". I believe our economic pit right now is far deeper than I can explain, as I am no economic expert and will not intend to portray myself as such.
Corporate media has no obligations to anyone. They are a for-profit entity, and under the freedoms protected by our constitution they can say whatever they want. I can not question their money-making tactics, it is our choice whether or not to engage them.
I think these videos proved that the driving force of everything is money. It was interesting to see Jon Stewart question Cramer's and CNBC's objectives. It just shows that it all comes down to the entertainment factor. People want to watch shows that are interesting and hold their attention, not shows that talk about the harsh realities. And that is just want Cramer does. He "entertains" the audience with the economy, avoiding the harsh realities as much as possible. I don't think this is anyone's fault, but rather just what the audience chooses to believe. I mean, people know that money is what is driving these television shows and its all about how creative, original and entertaining they can be to get the most viewers. I don't think that anyone can specifically be blamed for the economic crisis because there were many factors that contributed. And even if CNBC did report the realities, I don't think there would have been any way to stop it. The main point is, they are trying to make money. And when it comes to money, people will sometimes put their morals aside to be the most successful. The media is free to say what they want, whether you choose to believe everything is up to you. As the saying goes, you can't believe everything you hear.
-Role of the Media-
Entertainment vs. Factual Reporting
Objectivity of Media
All television, except for maybe PBS, exists for making a profit. They more viewers they recieve, the more advertising they are offered and the more money the network makes. Even the Daily Show is for making a profit, infact, it's one of Comedy Centrals biggest money makers. But what struck me the most was the differen Jon Stewart made between his show and CNBC's "news" is that Comedy Central and Stewart protray his show truthfully: as a biasist, liberal show, as I think Stewart says, as a venom or as snake oil. However, Cramer's show, as shown by the "Trust Jim Cramer, he's got your back" is really snake poison portrayed as healthy vitamins. Because of this manipulation of the viewer, although those false advertisements should be held accountable for lying to the public, but the viewers have to realize not to believe everything they hear and to be able to make up their own minds.
Where does the blame lie when we speak of the Economic Crises?
There are so many possible answers to this question that there is no concrete answer. People want a specific, single organization or person to blame, to focus all their anger upon; they want a scapegoat, something actual that they can point at and say "Look its completely their fault". But this isn't how the finacial world or the economy functions. It is the combination of thousands and thousands of complex things, corporations, organizations, companies, technologies, stocks, consumers, the government, currency, terrorist attacks; even nature, the weather, the very envirnoment that surrounds us can impact our economic crisis. When discussing the current economic crisis concerning AIG, the banks, and other financial institutions, and of course the US car manufacturing business, I think its a mixture of these corporations trying to hid the fact that they had been struggling or they had done dirty business until they eventually almost had to declare bankrupcty since they couldn't fix their mixtakes, the government for not exhibiting control on some of these blatantly out of control corporations,and now that I'm typing this all out, I know I could probably go on for awhile listing who is to blame. But does it really matter? Who is to blame? If it is discovered that there is someone to blame who is going to hold them accountable and punish them for their actions? It seems that all the major players are involved so who does that leave? And rather than trying to blame someone why arent we more focused on finding a way to fix it?
-Two stock market realities: Short term speculation vs. long-term investment
Honestly, I don't know much about the stcok market. Most of what I've learned I have learned because of the crisis. Last fall when the stock market was falling dramatically everyday, it was front page news, headline news every day and I would read the news, watch the shows, ask my father, my friends, anyone I could to gather as much information as I could. In my very personal opinion, since I am no expert, speculating on short term expectation is wasteful and Frankly dangerous as Stewart says. If I were to invest, I would do it carefully and through long term investments. Really, right now all I would do with my money is stick it under my bed and never let anybody touch it. That is, if I had any money to be careful with since all my money is now flowing through Europe.
-Role of the Media-
Entertainment vs. Factual Reporting
Objectivity of Media
All television, except for maybe PBS, exists for making a profit. They more viewers they recieve, the more advertising they are offered and the more money the network makes. Even the Daily Show is for making a profit, infact, it's one of Comedy Centrals biggest money makers. But what struck me the most was the differen Jon Stewart made between his show and CNBC's "news" is that Comedy Central and Stewart protray his show truthfully: as a biasist, liberal show, as I think Stewart says, as a venom or as snake oil. However, Cramer's show, as shown by the "Trust Jim Cramer, he's got your back" is really snake poison portrayed as healthy vitamins. Because of this manipulation of the viewer, although those false advertisements should be held accountable for lying to the public, but the viewers have to realize not to believe everything they hear and to be able to make up their own minds.
Where does the blame lie when we speak of the Economic Crises?
There are so many possible answers to this question that there is no concrete answer. People want a specific, single organization or person to blame, to focus all their anger upon; they want a scapegoat, something actual that they can point at and say "Look its completely their fault". But this isn't how the finacial world or the economy functions. It is the combination of thousands and thousands of complex things, corporations, organizations, companies, technologies, stocks, consumers, the government, currency, terrorist attacks; even nature, the weather, the very envirnoment that surrounds us can impact our economic crisis. When discussing the current economic crisis concerning AIG, the banks, and other financial institutions, and of course the US car manufacturing business, I think its a mixture of these corporations trying to hid the fact that they had been struggling or they had done dirty business until they eventually almost had to declare bankrupcty since they couldn't fix their mixtakes, the government for not exhibiting control on some of these blatantly out of control corporations,and now that I'm typing this all out, I know I could probably go on for awhile listing who is to blame. But does it really matter? Who is to blame? If it is discovered that there is someone to blame who is going to hold them accountable and punish them for their actions? It seems that all the major players are involved so who does that leave? And rather than trying to blame someone why arent we more focused on finding a way to fix it?
-Two stock market realities: Short term speculation vs. long-term investment
Honestly, I don't know much about the stcok market. Most of what I've learned I have learned because of the crisis. Last fall when the stock market was falling dramatically everyday, it was front page news, headline news every day and I would read the news, watch the shows, ask my father, my friends, anyone I could to gather as much information as I could. In my very personal opinion, since I am no expert, speculating on short term expectation is wasteful and Frankly dangerous as Stewart says. If I were to invest, I would do it carefully and through long term investments. Really, right now all I would do with my money is stick it under my bed and never let anybody touch it. That is, if I had any money to be careful with since all my money is now flowing through Europe.
Post a Comment