What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
175 Comments
- inactive, on 03/14/2009, -5/+65Good article, Glenn. Thanks for submitting, Phil.
I do give Cramer credit for having the balls to go on the show. He is but one very small player in this whole comedy of errors, and he shouldn't become the poster boy for the failure of Wall Street or the bailout, or the absurdity of the network and cable news talking heads.
I will never forget last night's interview by Jon with Cramer. Priceless. The comedian left the comedy behind and got real. REAL real. - kp998, on 03/13/2009, -7/+65Glenn Greenwald slaps down Cramer and a few of his friends-David Gregory, Charlie Gibson, Brian Williams, David Ignatius and most of their friends, who continue to be defiantly and pompously proud of the exact same role they play.
- ScienceDoc, on 03/14/2009, -14/+70The really spooky thing is - some people believe their *****. Look at the neocon fools on Digg. How dumb are people?
- jkillsl, on 03/14/2009, -0/+41I'm surprised at the many commenters here who appear to have not read the article. Jim Cramer and Jon Stewart aren't the point. Neither are Obama and the economic crisis. It's the degradation of the media and the abysmal lack of critical thinking among mainstream journalists.
- teebird, on 03/14/2009, -3/+29This is an old problem in journalism that has only become more troublesome with the proliferation of 24-hour news channels. Too many journalists are willing to compromise their professional integrity in order to have access to the big names and the insiders who can and will withhold access from anyone who doesn't tell the story the way the want it told.
Real journalism requires a lot of time digging for facts and connecting the dots but Big Media wants the story and they want it now because no news operation wants to see the competition making a splash with a big interview while their own people are still tied up in research, even if that research could result in a far superior and more informative product.
A classic example of journalists doing the trenchwork required to get the real story is Woodward and Bernstein and their coverage of the Watergate break-in. Imagine what it would have been like if Woodward and Bernstein's reporting had been anything like the compliant and complacent coverage of the Wall street meltdown or the Bush administration's foreign policy and the "War on Terror."
On the other hand, imagine what it would have been like if Jon Stewart had been able to get Nixon's thugs into the interviewee's chair. - FrozenPie, on 03/14/2009, -2/+26Jon Stewart should get Peter Schiff on the show, it would be hilarious
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0YTY5TWtmU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv_kLqxbtcg - ColonelJessup, on 03/14/2009, -10/+30I love how, all of a sudden, everyone is an expert on all things financial, all things Wall Street, and all things economicallly related.....................
- FearlessFreep, on 03/14/2009, -3/+2120/20 Hindsight allows for amazing smugness
- teebird, on 03/14/2009, -2/+20I just finished watching "Buying the War," the Bill Moyers documentary that Glenn Greenwald cited in his article. It's the best TV analysis I've seen of how the media failed to do their job when covering the "War on Terror."
You can see the show online at: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/transcript1. ... - byronm, on 03/14/2009, -4/+21Are you implying that capitalism can only exist when you lie to artificially increase value where there is none?
- allowners, on 03/14/2009, -6/+19He's a fine Capitalist in good standing.
- scottc, on 03/14/2009, -2/+15The answer is: we don't buy your conspiracy theory. If you've watched Stewart for long you'll know that he needs no prompting to expose a fool. That's how he makes his living.
- Banelos, on 03/14/2009, -2/+14I think what Jon Stewart did for this interview WAS investigative journalism. He researched Cramer's and CNBC's work and found all the contradictory statements and confronted him with them in order to come to some sort of truth behind it all.
He was extremely prepared and had done his homework for this interview, unlike most talking heads on the TV these days. - richpav, on 03/14/2009, -1/+12I see it more as people are starting to understand what happened and what's going on now at least enough to have a somewhat educated opinion. I'm not an expert, but thanks to NPR and This American Life I can follow the conversations some of the time.
- Spoomeister, on 03/14/2009, -1/+12a) If the average American can't be bothered to think, and do research, when it comes to how they spend their own money, why expect it from the journalists?
b) There's no sign of journalists being punished for bad reporting, through low ratings, lost ad revenue, bad reputation, or all three. It's not going to change until it stops making money. - appleofdischord, on 03/14/2009, -1/+12How was the whole thing with Jim Cramer *not* investigative journalism on Jon Stewart's part?
- BillCStickers, on 03/14/2009, -3/+13Antiinterlectualism at its finest.
Apart from 'aberrational' which feels like it's been badly thesaurus-ed, this is exactly what you'd expect from a well thought out article. That sentence expresses so much more than "it's normal for media to lie."
Do you really want to read articles comprised of 5 word sentences sounding like it was written by a 5th grader? or are you just pissed that you had to pull out your dictionary for the words complicity and disseminating? - topcat5, on 03/14/2009, -1/+10No surprise that MSBNC and CNBC were silent about this interview the day after it took place. It was all they could talk about the day before.
- SteveIsTheDude, on 03/14/2009, -1/+10Better link here: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/watch.html
Everyone should watch "Buying the War".
I love the part when one of Oprahs audience members questions the Iraq war and she rips into them... it is sooo scary how the media was used to push the war. A war totally started for ***** reasons. - teebird, on 03/14/2009, -0/+9And you can, of course, tell us exactly how Pres. Obama is "connected" to a meltdown in share prices and the investment banking system that every expert in the world says has its roots in actions and misdeeds committed years before Obama was even a candidate for president.
Inquiring minds want to know! - byronm, on 03/14/2009, -1/+9I think you missed the entire point Jon was making. Journalism isn't about pushing the propaganda, its about discovering the truth or making an attempt to do so. The show didn't bash market analysts or stock market picks at all, it bashed the idea that someone would blindly listen to CEO's who want to obviously keep the market in their favor without actually inquiring the truth of the matter before they got on their show and touted the CEO's statements as fact.
Ever heard that saying about assume? it makes an ass out of u and me - ralphthemagi, on 03/14/2009, -0/+8"I'm surprised at the many commenters here who appear to have not read the article."
You must be new around these parts... - SamSks, on 03/14/2009, -3/+11What?!?
That makes no sense. What makes Cramer a Liberal? The fact that he was part of some Civil Rights protests when he was younger? What's wrong with that - unless, you believe that Blacks should be treated as second second rate citizens. - ubuwalker31, on 03/14/2009, -2/+10The problem with financial analysts (and stock picking, as well) is that their prediction rates have nothing to do with reality. There are thousands of stock market analysts, and only a handful make correct stock picks. The media (and the public) assumes that they are successful in picking stocks because of their high success rate, which everyone incorrectly believes is attributed to some sort of talent or special knowledge.
In "The Drunkard's Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives", Leonard Mlodinow argues that the successes of analysts and fund managers is distributed randomly. The Jim Cramers and 5 star Morning Star Funds are just coincidental outliers on a randomly distributed bell curve. Out of the thousands of financial gurus, he basically predicts that there is a 1 in 40 chance (if I remember correctly) that someone will always correctly guess the direction of the market.
Anyone who tries to time the market, pick stocks, or predict what is going to happen in the future in the market is chasing a fools errand. There are other tools, like dollar cost averaging and diversification, which make people money using solid mathematics. - vincevega87, on 03/14/2009, -0/+8This is a very astute piece of criticism, I completely agree. There is a general desire in the public to make a scapegoat out of Cramer, who may well be an *****, but in a way he's just a pawn. People need to look at the bigger picture and think about how the establishment, the corrupt government and the media, allow for things like this to be commoplace. And then make their own conclusions.
- byronm, on 03/14/2009, -4/+11He's nothing but honest. I'd ***** my pants if i ever saw the day when the talking heads consistently said "hey, i'm nothing but an entertainer" but they never would because that would take away their power that they impose over their listeners/viewers.
Oddly enough it takes a sense of intellectual understanding to get Jon. If your dumb as a box of bricks you probably wouldn't like his show because you wouldn't understand anything he speaks of but if your intelligent enough to be a critical thinker Jon's comedy gold is almost to the point that it disgusts you that comedy is the only channel willing to speak the truth. - Insightful, on 03/14/2009, -1/+8You are kidding right?
Here's one:
"One sparkling piece of journalism was by Peggy Noonan in this weekend's Wall Street Journal. Curl up with this one and give it the quality time it deserves. I'll say it again: Peggy is doing the work of her career and must be considered an early favorite for next cycle's Pulitzer for commentary."
What did Noonan write that was so special?
"America is Mr. Obama's problem." Obama does not care for America nor its history whereas "John McCain carries it in his bones." and "that's why people talk about the flag pin absent from the lapel. Snooty lefties get angry when you ask them to talk about these things. They get resentful. Who are you to question my patriotism?"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120906741679842493 ...
Really? This is Pulitzer quality?
But that is minor stuff. Greenwald has most problem with the fact that when NYT exposes the former generals as not only just mere Pentagon mouthpieces but have personal and financial interest in the current war, NBC chose to ignore with the issue with Williams claiming they were no big deal.
Williams is a huge sycophant. - byronm, on 03/14/2009, -1/+8While your at PBS there are a ton of other great frontline shows not to mention all the cool science shows. I love the String Theory episodes. Its no wonder the republican machine wants to kill funding to PBS, it makes people to smart and to critically thinking.
- appleofdischord, on 03/14/2009, -2/+8wat?
- Rixar13, on 03/14/2009, -4/+10I watched the entire Cramer vs. Stewart confrontation yesterday. It's worth a look. Jon Stewart won hands down.
If you haven't yet seen the interview, you can and should watch it here; if you watch only one segment, watch the middle one and the beginning of the third. - apeywoo, on 03/14/2009, -0/+6solid -
did you read this piece before commenting? doesn't sound like it. please do.
mmk thanks - mithrasinvictus, on 03/14/2009, -0/+6Those people think their opinion trumps mere facts. They choose to believe whatever fits their preconceptions and anything that does not is dismissed. In their world, if enough people share the same opinion that makes it true.
- bernlin2000, on 03/14/2009, -1/+7Excellent article: media complicity has been a problem for many years now, and I don't think a lot of people really are aware of how bad it is...at least until the CNBC-Steward thing happened :)
- VogonPoet, on 03/14/2009, -1/+7Ignorance bonus point winner! Greenwald's article is more about the failure of the media as its roll as the forth estate. Stewart didn't go after Cramer specifically much in his interview. He did specifically state that it was somewhat unfair that Cramer has become the poster child for news media failure.
So now that your comment has proven that you neither read the article or listened to Stewart's interview what's next? Some spouting off about how the media is all a bunch of liberal plants? - blackinthmiddle, on 03/14/2009, -2/+8It would be easier. It also wouldn't deliver the message he was trying to convey. "Mindless complicity" says I'm just giving a rubber stamp to everything someone on my show says. It doesn't say if I'm doing that because I KNOW the person on my show is lying (which is what you said with "It's normal for media outlets to lie"). It also doesn't say that I'm doing it because I'm simply being lazy (which you could derive from "Mindless complicity"). It could also very well mean that I'm just a pretty face with no thought it my head.
You, in your attempt to use "small words" butchered the full depth of what the author tried to convey. Maybe you should use bigger words? - mlvassallo, on 03/14/2009, -3/+8A Journalist isn't there to make the news or be the news a Journalist is there to report it.
- FearlessFreep, on 03/14/2009, -5/+10"Let's cut to the chase. There are two kinds of people: sheep and sharks. Anyone who's a sheep is fired. Who's a sheep?"
"Uh excuse me? Which is the one people like to hug?"
"Gutsy question, you're a shark. Sharks are winners and they don't look back 'cause they don't have necks. Necks are for sheep." - byronm, on 03/14/2009, -2/+7WTF are you talking about? This is an article about failed journalism. If you actually believe what you say then the article has more merit about the sad state of journalism in our country.
- cooljkaz, on 03/14/2009, -2/+6Agreed - Jim Cramer is supposed to be the expert in his field, and yet Jon was able to hit him with specific points, and Cramer crumbled. *THAT* is investigative journalism... Every kid in school right now who wants to be a reporter should be using Jon Stewart as an example, not the shepherds of sheep on the other channels.
The problem is (more times than not) you can't be a reporter unless you look like a car salesman or a bimbo. - inactive, on 03/14/2009, -1/+5@MORONpatriot shut up. you little whiny childern have nothing to contribute to this conversation. all you do think up paranoid crap about nothing.
your bankrupt philosophy handed down to you from a stupid actor has been proven to be *****. your side just says no no no to earmarks while at the same time your moronic party ran up the deficit by trillions. the ignorant tax policy of letting the rich get richer is wrong. and the holy ***** notion that wallstreet will regulate itself has gotten this country into the mess we are in.
shut the ***** up unless you have something intelligent to say . and just from your screen name I bet you have nothing to say except worn out repubtard crap.
please do us all a favor and go GALT you moron. - HappyScrappy, on 03/14/2009, -2/+6What's this have to do with liberalism?
- inactive, on 03/14/2009, -0/+4I would feel sorry for Crammer if he hadn't made millions for being a shill. However no one broke anyone's arm telling you to follow his advice. It was always obvious he was so busy changing his tune people's minds would go numb keeping track of all his picks. I always wanted someone to hold him to his contradictions and ineptitude.
- Kewldawg, on 03/14/2009, -3/+7these guys are nothing more than bookies.the stock market is nothing more than gambling. You are better served going dwon to the local horse/dog track and put your money there , at least you are controlling it . the way it is now your giving your money (i.e. stocks, 401K) to someone else and thier putting the money on hte "Horse"stock that they think will win.
- VitriolAndAngst, on 03/15/2009, -2/+6John Steward (t) is a bad tipper, and hangs out with Michael Moore. When not plotting the downfall of America, he likes to read books from Chairman Mao.
Therefore, we should completely ignore the important fact that Jim Cramer was selling us financial products, and the entire Financial News Services, are little more than infomercials.
Because, we are completely distracted by noticing how anyone challenging the status quo is flawed in some way -- wether it be unpaid taxes, or crap we just made up.
And to quote another wise person who posted above me;
"Worst. Argument. Ever."
But nice try on supporting the shills by distracting everyone. - cooljkaz, on 03/14/2009, -5/+9Worst. Argument. Ever.
- Thwarter, on 03/14/2009, -0/+4That's the point I was going to make. I was hoping someone else would mention that.
Most mainstream media needs access to politicians, CEOs, Wall Street bigwigs, etc. to get their 'credibility' and ratings for their news. If they were to really investigate and report on the truth, and those reports were not inline with the desires of the organizations they are reporting on, those organizations would simply be black-balled by the groups they are reporting on and no longer be given access.
Someone goes too far criticizing the administration? They get their press credentials demoted and no longer have access to the White House or Congress. Someone on CNBC reports the truth about ponzi schemes or the rampant mortgage-backed securities fraud? The Wall St. Good Ol' Boys club will not go on their shows again leaving CNBC with little or no access to any big names in the game.
Combine that with the fact that most mainstream news agencies are in one way or another owned by huge corporations, then you get a news media service that is no longer independent and able to report truth that has not been watered down and twisted by the spin and propoganda needs of the groups they are reporting on. - glomza, on 03/14/2009, -0/+4in what fantasy world does that make sense?
- cooljkaz, on 03/14/2009, -1/+5I guess that's why he can do it - if he was on Fox News he'd have been fired a long time ago. Thank God he has the ability to be right and wrong because the other channels have no tolerance for mistakes or off-the-message commentary. I guess it's a win-win for all of us, because no one else has been able to bring attention to corruption like he's been able to... and you know for a fact that that interview with Cramer was no walk in the park for either of them. So let's give him a little credit...
- captjc, on 03/14/2009, -0/+3@deema1
Calm down. Jon Stewart is a comedian, first and foremost. He is not Political figurehead, an analyst, or a journalist. He is a comedian playing the role of a political commentator. That is all he is and all he claims to be. He doesn't claim to have the answers. His job is to present some of the news stories and comment on them in a comedic manor.
Attacking Jon Stewart for what he does is like attacking Jim Gaffigan for spreading anti-Hot Pocket Propaganda. - AvangionQ, on 03/14/2009, -0/+3I've said it before and I'll say it again ... lying to the press should be added to the law as a variant of perjury, a felony punishable by 1 year imprisonment per caught offense, punishment negated if publicly admonishing the error/mistake/lie before trial starts, thus misinformation is culled and the truth wins out ... that way, this sort of copious and repeated disservice won't be nearly as often foisted upon the American public ...
-
Show 51 - 100 of 179 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is