RSSA few days after Jon Stewart vs. Cramer
Mar 19
It’s had a few days to sink in now. I’ve had this nagging feeling, since watching the episode, that Jons rage was a bit misplaced. I’ve finally figured out why. In my opinion, his expectations for a 24 hour news station are too high.
His point was that a financial news network should have been doing more investigative reporting leading up to this recession. I agree that should be true. However, maybe I’m being too cynical, but these days who actually still believes a network news broadcast has their own best interests in mind? Did any of the news networks ensure we knew the truth leading up to the Iraq war? Did the mainstream media discuss the bulk of Bush’s shenanigans? Was it in my best interest to hear about Monica Lewinski and OJ 24 hours a day?
Further, if you’re hoping to stay on top of the financial system by watching a guy who punches a board to make funny noises, you’re going to have big problems.
Mar 20, 2009 @ 13:03:48
Stewart didn’t actually go after Cramer as much as the network. Why Cramer put himself up to be the networks scape goat is beyond me. I think that Stewart’s underlying message is needed. When (some) bloggers are doing more when it comes to investigative journalism than journos we all need to worry. If MSM outlets (whether print or broadcast) abdicate their responsibilities to their audience they at least need to acknowledge that they are no longer news outlets but simply entertainment and or infomercial platforms.
Mar 31, 2009 @ 11:05:18
Stewart was completely right, but it still hurt to watch an already apologetic Cramer sit there and take it.
I just wish someone in the MSM would have had the guts to stand up and face their incompetence/near-complicity in the run up to the Iraq war. I think CNBC may learn from this, but from the way the pundits talk today, I don’t think anyone ever learned from Iraq. They just want to sweep it under the rug and keep making the same mistakes.