Jon Stewart basically kills Jim Cramer

[DeToxRox]

I am not a big political person and have no allegiance, but for pure entertainment, the verbal beatdown Stewart put on Cramer was amazing. I don't even like Stewart that much but he is vicious when he wants to be. Haven't found video yet but I'll link once I do.

[mckerney]

Should be on the Daily Show website tomorrow, some of the leadup here is solid:

<style type='text/css'>.cc_box a:hover .cc_home{background:url('http://www.comedycentral.com/comedycentral/video/assets/syndicated-logo-over.png') !important;}.cc_links a{color:#b9b9b9;text-decoration:none;}.cc_show a{color:#707070;text-decoration:none;}.cc_title a{color:#868686;text-decoration:none;}.cc_links a:hover{color:#67bee2;text-decoration:underline;}</style><div class='cc_box' style='position:relative'><a href='http://www.comedycentral.com' target='_blank' style='display:inline; float:left; width:60px; height:31px;'><div class='cc_home' style='float:left; border:solid 1px #cfcfcf; border-width:1px 0px 0px 1px; width:60px; height:31px; background:url("http://www.comedycentral.com/comedycentral/video/assets/syndicated-logo-out.png");'></div></a><div style='font:bold 10px Arial,Helvetica,Verdana,sans-serif; float:left; width:299px; height:31px; border:solid 1px #cfcfcf; border-width:1px 1px 0px 0px; overflow:hidden; color:#707070;'><div class='cc_show' style='position:relative; background-color:#e5e5e5;padding-left:3px; height:14px; padding-top:2px; overflow:hidden;'><a href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/' target='_blank'>The Daily Show With Jon Stewart</a><span style='position:absolute; top:2px; right:3px;'>M - Th 11p / 10c</span></div><div class='cc_title' style='font-size:11px; color:#868686; background-color:#f5f5f5; padding:3px; padding-top:1px; line-height:14px; height:21px; overflow:hidden;'><a href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=220252&title=cnbc-gives-financial-advice' target='_blank'>CNBC Gives Financial Advice</a></div></div><embed style='float:left; clear:left;' src='http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:220252' width='360' height='301' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' wmode='window' allowFullscreen='true' allowscriptaccess='always' allownetworking='all' flashvars='autoPlay=false' bgcolor='#000000'></embed><div class='cc_links' style='float:left; clear:left; width:358px; border:solid 1px #cfcfcf; border-top:0px; font:10px Arial,Helvetica,Verdana,sans-serif; color:#b9b9b9; background-color:#f5f5f5;'><div style='width:177px; float:left; padding-left:3px;'><a target='_blank' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/index.jhtml'>Daily Show Full Episodes</a><br /><a target='_blank' href='http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/important_things/index.jhtml'>Important Things With Demetri Martin</a></div><div style='width:177px; float:left;'><a target='_blank' href='http://www.indecisionforever.com'>Political Humor</a><br /><a target='_blank' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/tagSearchResults.jhtml?term=Clusterf%23%40k+to+the+Poor+House'>Economic Crisis</a></div><div style='clear:both'></div></div><div style='clear:both'></div></div>

<style type='text/css'>.cc_box a:hover .cc_home{background:url('http://www.comedycentral.com/comedycentral/video/assets/syndicated-logo-over.png') !important;}.cc_links a{color:#b9b9b9;text-decoration:none;}.cc_show a{color:#707070;text-decoration:none;}.cc_title a{color:#868686;text-decoration:none;}.cc_links a:hover{color:#67bee2;text-decoration:underline;}</style><div class='cc_box' style='position:relative'><a href='http://www.comedycentral.com' target='_blank' style='display:inline; float:left; width:60px; height:31px;'><div class='cc_home' style='float:left; border:solid 1px #cfcfcf; border-width:1px 0px 0px 1px; width:60px; height:31px; background:url("http://www.comedycentral.com/comedycentral/video/assets/syndicated-logo-out.png");'></div></a><div style='font:bold 10px Arial,Helvetica,Verdana,sans-serif; float:left; width:299px; height:31px; border:solid 1px #cfcfcf; border-width:1px 1px 0px 0px; overflow:hidden; color:#707070;'><div class='cc_show' style='position:relative; background-color:#e5e5e5;padding-left:3px; height:14px; padding-top:2px; overflow:hidden;'><a href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/' target='_blank'>The Daily Show With Jon Stewart</a><span style='position:absolute; top:2px; right:3px;'>M - Th 11p / 10c</span></div><div class='cc_title' style='font-size:11px; color:#868686; background-color:#f5f5f5; padding:3px; padding-top:1px; line-height:14px; height:21px; overflow:hidden;'><a href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=220288&title=in-cramer-we-trust' target='_blank'>In Cramer We Trust</a></div></div><embed style='float:left; clear:left;' src='http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:220288' width='360' height='301' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' wmode='window' allowFullscreen='true' allowscriptaccess='always' allownetworking='all' flashvars='autoPlay=false' bgcolor='#000000'></embed><div class='cc_links' style='float:left; clear:left; width:358px; border:solid 1px #cfcfcf; border-top:0px; font:10px Arial,Helvetica,Verdana,sans-serif; color:#b9b9b9; background-color:#f5f5f5;'><div style='width:177px; float:left; padding-left:3px;'><a target='_blank' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/index.jhtml'>Daily Show Full Episodes</a><br /><a target='_blank' href='http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/important_things/index.jhtml'>Important Things With Demetri Martin</a></div><div style='width:177px; float:left;'><a target='_blank' href='http://www.indecisionforever.com'>Political Humor</a><br /><a target='_blank' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/tagSearchResults.jhtml?term=Clusterf%23%40k+to+the+Poor+House'>Economic Crisis</a></div><div style='clear:both'></div></div><div style='clear:both'></div></div>

<style type='text/css'>.cc_box a:hover .cc_home{background:url('http://www.comedycentral.com/comedycentral/video/assets/syndicated-logo-over.png') !important;}.cc_links a{color:#b9b9b9;text-decoration:none;}.cc_show a{color:#707070;text-decoration:none;}.cc_title a{color:#868686;text-decoration:none;}.cc_links a:hover{color:#67bee2;text-decoration:underline;}</style><div class='cc_box' style='position:relative'><a href='http://www.comedycentral.com' target='_blank' style='display:inline; float:left; width:60px; height:31px;'><div class='cc_home' style='float:left; border:solid 1px #cfcfcf; border-width:1px 0px 0px 1px; width:60px; height:31px; background:url("http://www.comedycentral.com/comedycentral/video/assets/syndicated-logo-out.png");'></div></a><div style='font:bold 10px Arial,Helvetica,Verdana,sans-serif; float:left; width:299px; height:31px; border:solid 1px #cfcfcf; border-width:1px 1px 0px 0px; overflow:hidden; color:#707070;'><div class='cc_show' style='position:relative; background-color:#e5e5e5;padding-left:3px; height:14px; padding-top:2px; overflow:hidden;'><a href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/' target='_blank'>The Daily Show With Jon Stewart</a><span style='position:absolute; top:2px; right:3px;'>M - Th 11p / 10c</span></div><div class='cc_title' style='font-size:11px; color:#868686; background-color:#f5f5f5; padding:3px; padding-top:1px; line-height:14px; height:21px; overflow:hidden;'><a href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=220510&title=basic-cable-personality-clash' target='_blank'>Basic Cable Personality Clash Skirmish '09</a></div></div><embed style='float:left; clear:left;' src='http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:220510' width='360' height='301' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' wmode='window' allowFullscreen='true' allowscriptaccess='always' allownetworking='all' flashvars='autoPlay=false' bgcolor='#000000'></embed><div class='cc_links' style='float:left; clear:left; width:358px; border:solid 1px #cfcfcf; border-top:0px; font:10px Arial,Helvetica,Verdana,sans-serif; color:#b9b9b9; background-color:#f5f5f5;'><div style='width:177px; float:left; padding-left:3px;'><a target='_blank' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/index.jhtml'>Daily Show Full Episodes</a><br /><a target='_blank' href='http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/important_things/index.jhtml'>Important Things With Demetri Martin</a></div><div style='width:177px; float:left;'><a target='_blank' href='http://www.indecisionforever.com'>Political Humor</a><br /><a target='_blank' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/tagSearchResults.jhtml?term=Clusterf%23%40k+to+the+Poor+House'>Economic Crisis</a></div><div style='clear:both'></div></div><div style='clear:both'></div></div>

<style type='text/css'>.cc_box a:hover .cc_home{background:url('http://www.comedycentral.com/comedycentral/video/assets/syndicated-logo-over.png') !important;}.cc_links a{color:#b9b9b9;text-decoration:none;}.cc_show a{color:#707070;text-decoration:none;}.cc_title a{color:#868686;text-decoration:none;}.cc_links a:hover{color:#67bee2;text-decoration:underline;}</style><div class='cc_box' style='position:relative'><a href='http://www.comedycentral.com' target='_blank' style='display:inline; float:left; width:60px; height:31px;'><div class='cc_home' style='float:left; border:solid 1px #cfcfcf; border-width:1px 0px 0px 1px; width:60px; height:31px; background:url("http://www.comedycentral.com/comedycentral/video/assets/syndicated-logo-out.png");'></div></a><div style='font:bold 10px Arial,Helvetica,Verdana,sans-serif; float:left; width:299px; height:31px; border:solid 1px #cfcfcf; border-width:1px 1px 0px 0px; overflow:hidden; color:#707070;'><div class='cc_show' style='position:relative; background-color:#e5e5e5;padding-left:3px; height:14px; padding-top:2px; overflow:hidden;'><a href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/' target='_blank'>The Daily Show With Jon Stewart</a><span style='position:absolute; top:2px; right:3px;'>M - Th 11p / 10c</span></div><div class='cc_title' style='font-size:11px; color:#868686; background-color:#f5f5f5; padding:3px; padding-top:1px; line-height:14px; height:21px; overflow:hidden;'><a href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=220524&title=jim-cramer-battle' target='_blank'>Jim Cramer Battle</a></div></div><embed style='float:left; clear:left;' src='http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:220524' width='360' height='301' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' wmode='window' allowFullscreen='true' allowscriptaccess='always' allownetworking='all' flashvars='autoPlay=false' bgcolor='#000000'></embed><div class='cc_links' style='float:left; clear:left; width:358px; border:solid 1px #cfcfcf; border-top:0px; font:10px Arial,Helvetica,Verdana,sans-serif; color:#b9b9b9; background-color:#f5f5f5;'><div style='width:177px; float:left; padding-left:3px;'><a target='_blank' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/index.jhtml'>Daily Show Full Episodes</a><br /><a target='_blank' href='http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/important_things/index.jhtml'>Important Things With Demetri Martin</a></div><div style='width:177px; float:left;'><a target='_blank' href='http://www.indecisionforever.com'>Political Humor</a><br /><a target='_blank' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/tagSearchResults.jhtml?term=Clusterf%23%40k+to+the+Poor+House'>Economic Crisis</a></div><div style='clear:both'></div></div><div style='clear:both'></div></div>

<style type='text/css'>.cc_box a:hover .cc_home{background:url('http://www.comedycentral.com/comedycentral/video/assets/syndicated-logo-over.png') !important;}.cc_links a{color:#b9b9b9;text-decoration:none;}.cc_show a{color:#707070;text-decoration:none;}.cc_title a{color:#868686;text-decoration:none;}.cc_links a:hover{color:#67bee2;text-decoration:underline;}</style><div class='cc_box' style='position:relative'><a href='http://www.comedycentral.com' target='_blank' style='display:inline; float:left; width:60px; height:31px;'><div class='cc_home' style='float:left; border:solid 1px #cfcfcf; border-width:1px 0px 0px 1px; width:60px; height:31px; background:url("http://www.comedycentral.com/comedycentral/video/assets/syndicated-logo-out.png");'></div></a><div style='font:bold 10px Arial,Helvetica,Verdana,sans-serif; float:left; width:299px; height:31px; border:solid 1px #cfcfcf; border-width:1px 1px 0px 0px; overflow:hidden; color:#707070;'><div class='cc_show' style='position:relative; background-color:#e5e5e5;padding-left:3px; height:14px; padding-top:2px; overflow:hidden;'><a href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/' target='_blank'>The Daily Show With Jon Stewart</a><span style='position:absolute; top:2px; right:3px;'>M - Th 11p / 10c</span></div><div class='cc_title' style='font-size:11px; color:#868686; background-color:#f5f5f5; padding:3px; padding-top:1px; line-height:14px; height:21px; overflow:hidden;'><a href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=220528&title=daily/colbert-betting-on-jim' target='_blank'>Daily/Colbert - Betting on Jim Cramer</a></div></div><embed style='float:left; clear:left;' src='http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:220528' width='360' height='301' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' wmode='window' allowFullscreen='true' allowscriptaccess='always' allownetworking='all' flashvars='autoPlay=false' bgcolor='#000000'></embed><div class='cc_links' style='float:left; clear:left; width:358px; border:solid 1px #cfcfcf; border-top:0px; font:10px Arial,Helvetica,Verdana,sans-serif; color:#b9b9b9; background-color:#f5f5f5;'><div style='width:177px; float:left; padding-left:3px;'><a target='_blank' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/index.jhtml'>Daily Show Full Episodes</a><br /><a target='_blank' href='http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/important_things/index.jhtml'>Important Things With Demetri Martin</a></div><div style='width:177px; float:left;'><a target='_blank' href='http://www.indecisionforever.com'>Political Humor</a><br /><a target='_blank' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/tagSearchResults.jhtml?term=Clusterf%23%40k+to+the+Poor+House'>Economic Crisis</a></div><div style='clear:both'></div></div><div style='clear:both'></div></div>

[Radii]

wow. I just got to watching this, I honestly thought Cramer was going to come on and Stewart would softball him and they'd laugh about how the media is silly and hug.

Stewart basically shit on Cramer for 30 minutes straight and Cramer essentially agreed that everything that Stewart said was accurate. I'm in awe.

[molson]

Stewart comes off as really douchy to me.

He's been living off that act where he plays a video and makes a funny face for like a decade. He failed as a comedian because he's not funny.

The Daily Show gig, though, is quite brilliant, not because of his talent but because of the format. It's kind of disturbing how it's looked at as some kind of legitimate news show - I know Stewart always denies that that's what it is, but he's clearly trying to be relevant.

[Radii]

I have no idea what Stewart's motivation is, or how seriously he takes things, but at least in this instance I believe it was entirely the actions of Cramer, followed up by the 24/7 news networks egging it on, that made this relevant. There was no reason at all for it to be anything more than another 5 minute piece where the daily show cherry picks something funny/ironic and makes fun of it.

I've been a big fan of the Daily Show for 8 or 9 years now, but I will say I only watch about half of the interviews. I think that I generally agree with Stewart's political views, but when he interviews people he disagrees with I do feel like I'm watching the left wing version of Bill O'Rielly. Stewart gets extremely holier than thou and can be a pretty big asshole. And this is coming from someone who almost always agrees with what he's saying while he's doing it.

But I really don't care about any of that. The first 15 minutes of the show is the most entertaining 15 minutes of television I watch most days.

[rowech]

Stewart lost me during the election when it became evident there was a completely different agenda to his show. At one time, it was great fun to watch despite it being somewhat slanted to the left. Now it's just become a soapbox for him.

[larrymcg421]

Stewart comes off as really douchy to me.

He's been living off that act where he plays a video and makes a funny face for like a decade. He failed as a comedian because he's not funny.

The Daily Show gig, though, is quite brilliant, not because of his talent but because of the format. It's kind of disturbing how it's looked at as some kind of legitimate news show - I know Stewart always denies that that's what it is, but he's clearly trying to be relevant.

I think it's pretty silly and bordering on ridiculous to say that Stewart failed as a comedian. And I'm not sure why it's a bad thing that he tries to be relevant. It's a topical comedy show after all.

What happened here was that Santelli was a slimy asshole for calling people who had trouble with their mortgages losers. So Stewart went after him and his network, because if theyre going to call these people losers, then what does that make CNBC who has given some historically bad advice recently.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

You get the feeling that Cramer is not a good debater. He didn't even really try, it was one extended "Yes, you're right."

There's also an uncut one on thedailyshow.com.

[Young Drachma]

Cramer has a huge following and so, it was better for him to go on here and take some medicine and move on. Stewart's just doing whatever gets the most laughs and makes the Daily Kos crowd ga-ga in response.

That said, he's funny and the fact that this show does more critical journalism than much of what passes these days at TV news is pretty laughable. I think that's really where the shtick has managed to work. That yea, it can be bent the wrong way and all of that, but...they got a lot of attention and so, naturally they were going to keep doing it, because they knew it'd keep people talking about them.

The format suits him well, but if he weren't engaging, it'd fall pretty flat.

But yeah, I can't really watch it for too long most days because it's a little too much liberal self-congratulation and choir preaching to suit me.

[sterlingice]

Considering what it looks like Cramer has done in the past (we've been talking about the deep capture allegations in the Recession thread for a couple of weeks now), this could have been worse. There's a lot of evidence that he and a lot of financial reporters have been manipulating stocks for quite a while to suit their hedge funds, trying to drive companies out of business with naked short selling. It's dirty, dirty business and he got off easy last night.

That said, he got hammered and hammered hard. He deserves worse- when the media is passively complicit, that bad, but even worse is that they were an active participant in this sort of stuff, and they absolutely have to get blasted for it.

SI

[DaddyTorgo]

i didn't get to see this but i'm looking forward to catching it online or this afternoon

[albionmoonlight]

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/03/to-catch-a-pred.html

[molson]

Considering what it looks like Cramer has done in the past (we've been talking about the deep capture allegations in the Recession thread for a couple of weeks now), this could have been worse. There's a lot of evidence that he and a lot of financial reporters have been manipulating stocks for quite a while to suit their hedge funds, trying to drive companies out of business with naked short selling. It's dirty, dirty business and he got off easy last night.

That said, he got hammered and hammered hard. He deserves worse- when the media is passively complicit, that bad, but even worse is that they were an active participant in this sort of stuff, and they absolutely have to get blasted for it.

SI

I'm a little out of the loop on these allegations, but if Cramer was trying to singlehandedly destroy Bear Sterns - wouldn't he trash them on his show instead of recommending them?

I don't know enough about all that to have an opinion, but I do think watching the Daily Show is like watching a frat boy jerking off in front of a crowd of other cheering frat boys.

They're perfectly allowed, like anyone else, to have a political slant, but I thought this quote from wiki was kind of funny:

"He (Stewart) acknowledges that the show is not necessarily an "equal opportunity offender", explaining that Republicans tended to provide more comedic fodder because "I think we consider those with power and influence targets and those without it, not." In an interview in 2005, when asked how he responded to critics claiming that The Daily Show is overly liberal, Stephen Colbert said likewise: "We are liberal, but Jon's very respectful of the Republican guests, and, listen, if liberals were in power it would be easier to attack them, but Republicans have the executive, legislative and judicial branches, so making fun of Democrats is like kicking a child, so it's just not worth it."

They can have whatever opinion they want, but being so disingenuous about it pretty annoying....What's the line now that the Democrats are in power?

There's just something creepy to me about the whole thing - telling everybody that you're just a comedy show (Stewart's favorite line used to be, "Look, the show after ours has puppets making prank calls"), and being the primary news source of a generation, and winning journalism awards.

[chesapeake]

Cramer has a huge following and so, it was better for him to go on here and take some medicine and move on. Stewart's just doing whatever gets the most laughs and makes the Daily Kos crowd ga-ga in response.

That said, he's funny and the fact that this show does more critical journalism than much of what passes these days at TV news is pretty laughable. I think that's really where the shtick has managed to work. That yea, it can be bent the wrong way and all of that, but...they got a lot of attention and so, naturally they were going to keep doing it, because they knew it'd keep people talking about them.

The format suits him well, but if he weren't engaging, it'd fall pretty flat.

But yeah, I can't really watch it for too long most days because it's a little too much liberal self-congratulation and choir preaching to suit me.

I am a member of the choir that Stewart preaches to.

I think this is a very, very good post, and the line I put in bold occasionally keeps me up at night wondering when my civilization is heading. That The Daily Show is occasionally the only media entity asking the real questions of our leaders that desperately need to be asked -- granted in an amusing fashion -- is a very dangerous thing.

[path12]

There's just something creepy to me about the whole thing - telling everybody that you're just a comedy show (Stewart's favorite line used to be, "Look, the show after ours has puppets making prank calls"), and being the primary news source of a generation, and winning journalism awards.

That's not Stewart's fault or the fault of the Daily Show though. That is (as Chesapeake noted above) an indictment of how immense a failure the media has become.

[Maple Leafs]

Regardless of whether you think Stewart is usually funny or not, that was a fascinating interview.

[DaddyTorgo]

I think we have to give Stewart and Colbert some room to run. The new administration has been in power less than 3 months - let's look at their record after 2-3 years of the new administration and see how much they have taken them to task.

They haven't really been "big" during a Democratic administration at all so I think we have yet to see.


*that being said, I expect that they will end up having a liberal bias, but to blast them for not calling Obama to task at all seems pretty weak at this point in time*

[ISiddiqui]

Stewart comes off as really douchy to me.

He's been living off that act where he plays a video and makes a funny face for like a decade. He failed as a comedian because he's not funny.

The Daily Show gig, though, is quite brilliant, not because of his talent but because of the format. It's kind of disturbing how it's looked at as some kind of legitimate news show - I know Stewart always denies that that's what it is, but he's clearly trying to be relevant.

It's kinda like a better "Weekend Update", but with some really douchy interviews. Stewart has gotten a bit full of himself lately.

What happened here was that Santelli was a slimy asshole for calling people who had trouble with their mortgages losers.

So the truth = slimy asshole now?

[larrymcg421]

So the truth = slimy asshole now?

Yeah, calling people who mismanaged their mortgages or found themselves in a much worse financial position because of the recession and now can't pay their mortgages "losers" makes him a slimy asshole, especially when he and his so-called expert network have made some bafflingly boneheaded calls. I mean, the average citizen shouldn't be expected to be more knowledgeable about what was going to happen than Santelli, Cramer, et al.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I think Stewart has been great at going after Congressional Democrats during this whole thing. Obama is more difficult, due to his popularity. I don't think they're the only ones struggling with finding the right tact on him.

When SNL satirized Reagan, wasn't it that he knew exactly what he was doing and the sweet old man thing was an act? Not exactly the hardest hitting stuff either.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

So the truth = slimy asshole now?

The whole point of the Daily Show doing this was pointing at the inconsistency of a network pimping the bank bailout while sneering at the homeowner bailout. That was the genesis of this whole thing.

[Honolulu_Blue]

There's just something creepy to me about the whole thing - telling everybody that you're just a comedy show (Stewart's favorite line used to be, "Look, the show after ours has puppets making prank calls"), and being the primary news source of a generation, and winning journalism awards.

I'd much rather this generation get its news from the Daily Show than Fox News, CNN, or any of the others. Like was mentioned earlier, that's not so much a praise of the Daily Show, but rather a harsh indictment of the state of television news journalism.

[Honolulu_Blue]

The whole point of the Daily Show doing this was pointing at the inconsistency of a network pimping the bank bailout while sneering at the homeowner bailout. That was the genesis of this whole thing.

It was a combination of that and critique of CNBC's stock market advice leading up to this whole collapse. Santelli calls the folks stuck in bad mortgages "losers", while CNBC's "experts" kept telling everyone that the market would be fine, to invest in stocks that completely lost their value in the matter of days, etc.

[jeff061]

That's not Stewart's fault or the fault of the Daily Show though. That is (as Chesapeake noted above) an indictment of how immense a failure the media has become.

I would say it's more of a indictment on capitalism and democracy and how they are doomed to failure because humans as a whole suck. They just provide what the consumers want, that's how it's supposed to work.

But hey, that's just me.

[Passacaglia]

Is there a lesson in here about blindly following what talking heads on TV tell you to do? More importantly, is that lesson spelled out in an article I can send to people who give out financial advice based on what they hear on these shows?

[ISiddiqui]

Yeah, calling people who mismanaged their mortgages or found themselves in a much worse financial position because of the recession and now can't pay their mortgages "losers" makes him a slimy asshole, especially when he and his so-called expert network have made some bafflingly boneheaded calls. I mean, the average citizen shouldn't be expected to be more knowledgeable about what was going to happen than Santelli, Cramer, et al.

So you don't think capitalism has winners and losers?

This is a very interesting world view. Tell me more.

Personally, I cheered out loud after I heard Santelli's rant.

[ISiddiqui]

The whole point of the Daily Show doing this was pointing at the inconsistency of a network pimping the bank bailout while sneering at the homeowner bailout. That was the genesis of this whole thing.

Don't work. Santelli was against TARP as well.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Were you against the bank bailout too?

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Don't work. Santelli was against TARP as well.

Stewart even noted this. He made it very clear that he wasn't attacking Santelli, he was attacking CNBC as a whole. He even reiterated that point several times during the Cramer interview.

[albionmoonlight]

If using humor to try and speak truth to power is liberal, then I guess that I enjoy liberal things.

And if I had to rank the Daily Show's targets, I think that it would be

(1) The media (by far)
(2) Republicans
(3) Democrats
(4) celebrities/other

Though I do think that (3) is gaining on (2) now that the Dems are doing and saying things.

I think that one of the issues with making fun of Obama is that he does not give you a comedy hook. Bush said dumb things and always had that weird grin on his face, like he couldn't beleive that they let him be President. Clinton was a fat, lecherous hillbilly. For the last 16 years, you had a President who was easy to parody.

Obama takes himself very very seriously and carries himself very very seriously. He reminds me of nothing so much as one of those professors who was very fair, and very engaging, and very smart, and always dressed well, and never cracked a joke in class. The kind of guy you are glad that you took the class from, but you didn't really feel that you got to know him at all--and you don't know any other students who did.

The combination of gravitas, distance, and his race make him very hard to parody. Even when you disagree with him, you tend to do it on his turf--intellectualism, rather than by engaging him personally.

[miked]

Stewart comes off as really douchy to me.

He's been living off that act where he plays a video and makes a funny face for like a decade. He failed as a comedian because he's not funny.

The Daily Show gig, though, is quite brilliant, not because of his talent but because of the format. It's kind of disturbing how it's looked at as some kind of legitimate news show - I know Stewart always denies that that's what it is, but he's clearly trying to be relevant.

I saw him last year at the Cobb Energy Center and thought he was pretty funny. I believe he talked about Obama and Hillary and the dems much more than Bush. But he's a comedian, so of course he's got an agenda...make fun of the people in charge that most of America thinks is fucking up. I'm not saying he doesn't give it out unequally, but judging by his audience, that's what they feel will bring viewers.

[larrymcg421]

So you don't think capitalism has winners and losers?

This is a very interesting world view. Tell me more.

Personally, I cheered out loud after I heard Santelli's rant.

Santelli isn't just talking about people as losers in the basic sense that they lost money, property, etc. He's calling them "losers" because he thinks they're idiots who should've known better. So if they're "losers" then the so-called experts on his own network are losers as well.

[DaddyTorgo]

Is there a lesson in here about blindly following what talking heads on TV tell you to do? More importantly, is that lesson spelled out in an article I can send to people who give out financial advice based on what they hear on these shows?

if you find one i'd love it. my grandmother is addicted to cramer.

[ISiddiqui]

Santelli isn't just talking about people as losers in the basic sense that they lost money, property, etc. He's calling them "losers" because he thinks they're idiots who should've known better. So if they're "losers" then the so-called experts on his own network are losers as well.

They are losers that made poor decisions (and yes, they should have known better than subprime mortgages and ARM loans). Is there any evidence other than your preconcieved bias that he's calling them morons?

[DaddyTorgo]

watching the unedited interview and either

a) Cramer is full of BS

or

b) he's actually a decent guy

Talking about how he wants to see indictments for AIG and how he's talked to the Justice Department about how to go in and get them and what not.

Maybe if I'd read one of those body-language books I'd be able to tell if he was truthful or lying, but he seems contrite.

[ISiddiqui]

Stewart even noted this. He made it very clear that he wasn't attacking Santelli, he was attacking CNBC as a whole. He even reiterated that point several times during the Cramer interview.

Yeah, but he's using Santelli as a stand in for CNBC. Not everyone at CNBC shares Santelli's views on the mortgage bailout.

[DaddyTorgo]

They are losers that made poor decisions (and yes, they should have known better than subprime mortgages and ARM loans). Is there any evidence other than your preconcieved bias that he's calling them morons?

They are losers? What about the financial professionals who made the best on subprimes and alt-A's that blew up the system?

How can you expect an "average Joe" to understand these things if people with advanced degrees can't understand them?

If I'm making crap-money and a bank offers me a subprime mortgage and says "but your home value will go up and you can flip your home and payoff the mortgage because home values keep going up" who am I as a non-professional (say a steelworker for example) to be able to understand that the bankers are getting me in over my head?

[ISiddiqui]

Were you against the bank bailout too?

Not against the concept of a bank bailout, but against how it was done. Probably would liked to have seen waaay more strings attached to giving away taxpayer money (first thing, of course, would be fire those responsible and amend their severance packages in exchange for the moolah).

Though I'm sure plenty of people realized that the total collapse of the banking system is a far worse outcome than a very deep recession where people who made bad mortgage deals pay the consequences.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Not against the concept of a bank bailout, but against how it was done. Probably would liked to have seen waaay more strings attached to giving away taxpayer money (first thing, of course, would be fire those responsible and amend their severance packages in exchange for the moolah).

Though I'm sure plenty of people realized that the total collapse of the banking system is a far worse outcome than a very deep recession where people who made bad mortgage deals pay the consequences.

They're two sides of the same coin. Both were people acting irresponsibly with their (and other people's) money. I can't see how one can have a principled leg to stand on saying they are different. Pragmatically, perhaps, but it's the inconsistency in principle that Stewart is going after.

[Marc Vaughan]

Stock picking in the media has always reminded me of a gambling tipping scheme I've seen practiced online.

* Basically you purhase several million email addresses of known gamblers (horse racing and so forth).
* Pick a race at random, tip each of the 10 horses in the race to win and email the recommendation to 1/10 of the people in your scheme.
* 1/10th of people you sent to will have had a 'winning' prediction from you.
* Repeat the picking and splitting of the predictions for another 3-4 times, each time 'prove' to the person what a good scheme it is by showing how much they'd have won based on the prior predictions you'd sent them.

At the end of this the recruiter will have gained 'suckers' each time around, in an increasing percentage with each round of emails, from a starting point of say 10m email addresses and only repeat emailing people who'd recieved a winner you'd get :-

1st race - 10m emails
2nd race - 1m emails
3rd race - 100,000 emails
4th race - 10,000 emails
5th race - 1,000 emails

Anyone who's a racing addict who isn't a ntural cynic and doesn't understand the scheme is likely to be interested after 5 races have been tipped correctly ...

Stock tippers do much the same thing but in a blanket bombing technique - they publicly tip 100 companies on the stock exchange but will then only mention their 'winners' in subsequent columns/programs.

[larrymcg421]

Not against the concept of a bank bailout, but against how it was done. Probably would liked to have seen waaay more strings attached to giving away taxpayer money (first thing, of course, would be fire those responsible and amend their severance packages in exchange for the moolah).

Though I'm sure plenty of people realized that the total collapse of the banking system is a far worse outcome than a very deep recession where people who made bad mortgage deals pay the consequences.

Because only the people that made these bad decisions will pay the consequences? Foreclosures don't lower surrounding property values? People that were responsible won't suffer at all under a deep recession? That's a very interesting worldview. Tell me more.

[path12]

So you don't think capitalism has winners and losers?

This is a very interesting world view. Tell me more.

Personally, I cheered out loud after I heard Santelli's rant.

I thought it hypocritical at best for Santelli and the traders at the CBOT to position themselves as the moral authority for these "losers".

If you're going to portion out blame, do those who took on more than they could afford deserve a portion? Absolutely. But in my opinion, those who represented themselves as financial experts and aggressively sold and approved these obviously bad loans -- with very little to no consequence due to the fact that they are "too big to fail" -- deserve the lions share.

To pillory the segment that is 10% of the problem by those who are part of the 90% is, well, disingenuous.

[molson]

Many of the people who screwed up their mortgages are absolutely complete losers, and its their fault that good people lost their houses later on.

The sellers who went out of business are complete failures and losers also. But not because their sales were "unfair", because they destroyed themselves. Our economy wouldn't work if corporations couldn't (legally, without fraud) screw over consumers to a degree.

Neither group of losers should ever be allowed to participate in the credit market again. (Not to say there's not a sensible solution that envolves ensuring there's banks in the world)

[path12]

I would say it's more of a indictment on capitalism and democracy and how they are doomed to failure because humans as a whole suck. They just provide what the consumers want, that's how it's supposed to work.

But hey, that's just me.

I would agree with you on the capitalism part, I believe that is about as flawed as communism. And maybe the humans suck angle. :)

I don't blame democracy.

[JPhillips]

They are losers that made poor decisions (and yes, they should have known better than subprime mortgages and ARM loans). Is there any evidence other than your preconcieved bias that he's calling them morons?

In this view where do inflated property values, questionable appraisals, over hyped loans, poor disclosure, and encouragement from Greenspan on down to take out these exotic mortgages come in?

I won't argue that there are irresponsible borrowers, but blaming everything on the sub-prime loan holder is just another form of ideological blindness.

[ISiddiqui]

They are losers? What about the financial professionals who made the best on subprimes and alt-A's that blew up the system?

Plenty of folks refused subprime mortages because they realized that fixed rates are the best things in the long term. Plenty of folk wanted to lock in low fixed rates when they were low. Plenty of folk were smart with their money.

Maybe those that didn't think about whether rates may actually go up can learn this painful lesson for the future (rather than learning the lesson that the government will bail them out - ie, its a nice moral hazard we've created).

[cartman]

Plenty of folks refused subprime mortages because they realized that fixed rates are the best things in the long term. Plenty of folk wanted to lock in low fixed rates when they were low. Plenty of folk were smart with their money.

Maybe those that didn't think about whether rates may actually go up can learn this painful lesson for the future (rather than learning the lesson that the government will bail them out - ie, its a nice moral hazard we've created).

There were plenty of subprime mortgages that weren't ARMs, zero-down, or other exotic loans, and were 30 year fixed rate.

[PilotMan]

This has to be the easiest gig for a comedian. I mean, hindsight is perfect, there are endless soundbytes and predictions on air. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.

[Raiders Army]

I think that anyone who thinks that The Daily Show writers don't target what is FUNNY is kidding themselves.

[Cringer]

There are plenty of losers getting foreclosed on. One of our new listings for example. The wife goes over to offer them Cash for Keys and this guy is in the driveway washing his brand new truck with two other fairly new cars sitting there and proceeds to act surprised they have been foreclosed on while admitting they ignored the mortgage companies attempts to work with them.

At least they have their cars, for now.

[ISiddiqui]

In this view where do inflated property values, questionable appraisals, over hyped loans, poor disclosure, and encouragement from Greenspan on down to take out these exotic mortgages come in?

I won't argue that there are irresponsible borrowers, but blaming everything on the sub-prime loan holder is just another form of ideological blindness.

So, what, bail out everyone even the irresponsible ones (after all, how do we know which ones were irresponsible rather than misled).

[DaddyTorgo]

This has to be the easiest gig for a comedian. I mean, hindsight is perfect, there are endless soundbytes and predictions on air. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.


it's true. it's true what that morning show guy said - he waits for someone to screwup, pulls out the soundbite, makes a funny face and does a little quip in a silly voice.

but hey...sometimes there's genuis in the simplicity of comedy.

like the whole tina fey "sarah palin" thing. the genuis was that she just read sarah's words back verbatim. And there was very little call that that wasn't funny.

[Big Fo]

Jon Stewart is a better journalist on his comedy show than most of the clowns on the news networks, that was great. It's a shame people aren't asked tough questions on the other channels very often.

albionmoonlight, that was a nice summary by Sullivan you posted.

[JPhillips]

So, what, bail out everyone even the irresponsible ones (after all, how do we know which ones were irresponsible rather than misled).

That's a much better argument than borrowers are losers.

[larrymcg421]

So, what, bail out everyone even the irresponsible ones (after all, how do we know which ones were irresponsible rather than misled).

So, what, let everyone suffer even the resposible ones? (after all, how do we know which ones were irresponsible rather than misled).

[ISiddiqui]

Because only the people that made these bad decisions will pay the consequences? Foreclosures don't lower surrounding property values? People that were responsible won't suffer at all under a deep recession? That's a very interesting worldview. Tell me more.

So your solution is to have the people that made bad decisions not face any consequences at all? Because other people may face the consequences of those peoples' actions (which, Hell, at least may get other people to get smart about getting their Congressman to do things to prevent this from happening again).

Once again, Hell of a moral hazard we are creating.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Well the choice is do we punish those who fucked up (both the bankers and the people with mortgages) in a punitive effort to have them learn their lesson and deal with the consequences, or do we look at it pragmatically and fix the situation as best we can while making sure this shit doesn't happen in the future?

[ISiddiqui]

So, what, let everyone suffer even the resposible ones? (after all, how do we know which ones were irresponsible rather than misled).

Yes. Maybe this will galvanize people to get changes made in the system.

They will be getting money from the stimulus bill just passed (and more money from the omnibus spending bill), so I don't see the reason for a mortgage bailout.

[Honolulu_Blue]

it's true. it's true what that morning show guy said - he waits for someone to screwup, pulls out the soundbite, makes a funny face and does a little quip in a silly voice.

but hey...sometimes there's genuis in the simplicity of comedy.

like the whole tina fey "sarah palin" thing. the genuis was that she just read sarah's words back verbatim. And there was very little call that that wasn't funny.

There's usually a lot more to it than just waiting for someone to make a mistake. Typically, it's calling people out for inconsistencies or hypocritical statements. For example, a politician says X is right. A few weeks or months later, when it turns out X was, in fact, very, very wrong, the politician turns around and says X was wrong as if he or she had never said it was right. Most cable news shows don't call out people for this kind of two-faced bullshit. It all gets lost in the noise and constant churn of the 24 hour news cycle.

This is what's going on here. CNBC holds its folks out there as economic experts. The tagline for Cramer's show is "In Cramer We Trust". They talk and talk and talk, giving out advice with extreme confidence about stuff that really matters, while, in truth, they really don't know what they're talking about. Then they call out people who listened to their "experts" "losers" for doing so. No on calls them out on it. Stewart did.

So, it's more than just waiting for someone to make a mistake, playing a clip, and then making a funny face.

[DaddyTorgo]

So your solution is to have the people that made bad decisions not face any consequences at all? Because other people may face the consequences of those peoples' actions (which, Hell, at least may get other people to get smart about getting their Congressman to do things to prevent this from happening again).

Once again, Hell of a moral hazard we are creating.

Ya know...I agonized over this with my parents, and they have agonized over it too. And they're both economists.

I don't want to bail out the people with bad mortgages because it seems fundamentally un-American. And it's like saying "screw you" to the people that made smart choices. Now you can try to make the argument to them that it's better for them in the long run because of their property values and things, but I have a feeling that's going to be very little consolation when they see their irresponsible neighbor getting their mortgage renegotiated and spending the excess money on a new car or a new home theater system while the responsible people are stuck living more frugally as a result of their choices. Shit, I don't even have a mortgage and I'd be pissed off. And the politicians know that if they do that it's political suicide, because (particularly in the House) you can't get elected by promising someone that if they vote for you their lot will be better in 7 years or 5 years. It's all instant gratification. And they can't alienate that many potential voters.

Shit, if the government is going to renegotiate people's mortgages utilizing taxpayer money (which they are by giving it to these banks in the forms of bailouts) then I want my fucking individual bailout too even though I don't have a mortgage.

[sterlingice]

watching the unedited interview and either

a) Cramer is full of BS

or

b) he's actually a decent guy

Talking about how he wants to see indictments for AIG and how he's talked to the Justice Department about how to go in and get them and what not.

Maybe if I'd read one of those body-language books I'd be able to tell if he was truthful or lying, but he seems contrite.

I think he was caught completely off guard last night and that was the only place he could go. Was he going to go after Stewart and say "no that video is a fake"? I mean, really, what was he going to do?

SI

[ISiddiqui]

OTOH, I was struck by the Tiny Fey read Palin's words back verbatim. She didn't. Millions think that Palin actually said "I can see Russia from my house". She didn't say anything like that. Now Stewart uses actual clips, but just something I noticed.

[cartman]

They will be getting money from the stimulus bill just passed (and more money from the omnibus spending bill), so I don't see the reason for a mortgage bailout.

One reason I could possibly see for a mortgage bailout is to minimize the effects of the massive over-leveraging of the mortgages via bundling them up and creating a new instrument that had a better than subprime rating that was then "protected" by a credit default swap.

So, going on the 25 to 1 leveraging that has been widely reported, for every $1 spent keeping a mortgage from going into default potentially saves $25 down the line.

[DaddyTorgo]

There's usually a lot more to it than just waiting for someone to make a mistake. Typically, it's calling people out for inconsistencies or hypocritical statements. For example, a politician says X is right. A few weeks or months later, when it turns out X was, in fact, very, very wrong, the politician turns around and says X was wrong as if he or she had never said it was right. Most cable news shows don't call out people for this kind of two-faced bullshit. It all gets lost in the noise and constant churn of the 24 hour news cycle.

This is what's going on here. CNBC holds its folks out there as economic experts. The tagline for Cramer's show is "In Cramer We Trust". They talk and talk and talk, giving out advice with extreme confidence about stuff that really matters, while, in truth, they really don't know what they're talking about. Then they call out people who listened to their "experts" "losers" for doing so. No on calls them out on it. Stewart did.

So, it's more than just waiting for someone to make a mistake, playing a clip, and then making a funny face.


You're right, and I was over-simplifying.

I don't have a problem with it either way...I think Stewart + Colbert is probably one of the funniest hours of TV - certainly the funniest hour of "regular programming" on TV.

Part of me wonders if Cramer was just conceeding to get off the show, or if we might actually see changes in his show. I guess that will tell us how serious he is. And I'm sure if he fails to make changes Stewart will continue to point that out.

[ISiddiqui]

Ya know...I agonized over this with my parents, and they have agonized over it too. And they're both economists.

I don't want to bail out the people with bad mortgages because it seems fundamentally un-American. And it's like saying "screw you" to the people that made smart choices. Now you can try to make the argument to them that it's better for them in the long run because of their property values and things, but I have a feeling that's going to be very little consolation when they see their irresponsible neighbor getting their mortgage renegotiated and spending the excess money on a new car or a new home theater system while the responsible people are stuck living more frugally as a result of their choices. Shit, I don't even have a mortgage and I'd be pissed off. And the politicians know that if they do that it's political suicide, because (particularly in the House) you can't get elected by promising someone that if they vote for you their lot will be better in 7 years or 5 years. It's all instant gratification. And they can't alienate that many potential voters.

Shit, if the government is going to renegotiate people's mortgages utilizing taxpayer money (which they are by giving it to these banks in the forms of bailouts) then I want my fucking individual bailout too even though I don't have a mortgage.

I agree. I think if you have a mortgage bailout there are going to be LOADS of pissed off people who cut back and scrimped and saved and made the cautious choices and bought a smaller house who see their dumb ass neighbor, who wasted his cash get a mortgage bailout. They'll ask, what about for the guys who were smart and cautious. What about the story of the two squirrels (you know, the one hordes nuts and the other fritters the summer away), etc, etc.

I think that the stimulus and omnibus budget bills had plenty of protections for people who are suffering and the mortgage bailout is just a bad idea.

[DaddyTorgo]

OTOH, I was struck by the Tiny Fey read Palin's words back verbatim. She didn't. Millions think that Palin actually said "I can see Russia from my house". She didn't say anything like that. Now Stewart uses actual clips, but just something I noticed.

She read the one speech back verbatim didn't she? that was my understanding.

we all know that palin said "you can see russia from alaska."

which is still false by the way - you can't. not even from that little rinkydink island off the coast of alaska that palin never visited

[DaddyTorgo]

I agree. I think if you have a mortgage bailout there are going to be LOADS of pissed off people who cut back and scrimped and saved and made the cautious choices and bought a smaller house who see their dumb ass neighbor, who wasted his cash get a mortgage bailout. They'll ask, what about for the guys who were smart and cautious. What about the story of the two squirrels (you know, the one hordes nuts and the other fritters the summer away), etc, etc.

I think that the stimulus and omnibus budget bills had plenty of protections for people who are suffering and the mortgage bailout is just a bad idea.

i agree that there will be loads of pissed off people, but there are definately economic arguments that can be made for the other side. and therein lies the dilemma.

frankly I don't think you'll see one because of the political reasons i brought up.

at least not a blanket one. maybe one like obama floated before where it's heavily qualified and conditioned.

[ISiddiqui]

One reason I could possibly see for a mortgage bailout is to minimize the effects of the massive over-leveraging of the mortgages via bundling them up and creating a new instrument that had a better than subprime rating that was then "protected" by a credit default swap.

So, going on the 25 to 1 leveraging that has been widely reported, for every $1 spent keeping a mortgage from going into default potentially saves $25 down the line.

Of course if there is a partial nationalization of the banks, there will have to be something done about that. Then again, I think the banks that did over leverage deserve to be dragged out as well... as long as it doesn't create a total financial collapse.

[sterlingice]

That's not Stewart's fault or the fault of the Daily Show though. That is (as Chesapeake noted above) an indictment of how immense a failure the media has become.

Well, again, that's the damning thing- very few in the media said anything about it.

The one really sad thing to me about this has already happened in this thread quite a few times. This is being billed as Stewart vs Cramer, some big tv personality clash.

But the real point of Stewart's whole lead up and interview is being missed- people aren't talking about the financial implications much or, god forbid, calling for investigations. It's all about the two personalities. And, frankly, that wasn't the point of the interview at all.

SI

[Honolulu_Blue]

OTOH, I was struck by the Tiny Fey read Palin's words back verbatim. She didn't. Millions think that Palin actually said "I can see Russia from my house". She didn't say anything like that. Now Stewart uses actual clips, but just something I noticed.

For certain responses, Fey did, indeed, read Palin's words back verbatim. I believe it was that whole, long rambling thing about job creation and healthcare or whatever. Not all of Fey's responses were verbatim, but some were.

As for the Russia quote, while Palin didn't say she could "see Russia from my house" she did, in fact, say something very much like that. Here's the real quote:

PALIN: And, Charlie, you’re in Alaska. We have that very narrow maritime border between the United States, and the 49th state, Alaska, and Russia. They are our next door neighbors.We need to have a good relationship with them. They’re very, very important to us and they are our next door neighbor.

GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?

PALIN: They’re our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.

GIBSON: What insight does that give you into what they’re doing in Georgia?

PALIN: Well, I’m giving you that perspective of how small our world is and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good relation with all of these countries, especially Russia.

[DaddyTorgo]

Of course if there is a partial nationalization of the banks, there will have to be something done about that. Then again, I think the banks that did over leverage deserve to be dragged out as well... as long as it doesn't create a total financial collapse.

Bolded the problem...it would. All of the major banks in this country were over-leveraged. If we got rid of them all we'd back to the 1800's model of having lots of little community banks, which would in turn inhibit large-scale economic growth and financial services.

[DaddyTorgo]

you're right SI - and hopefully now that the interview has happened that will direct the focus back on the substance of it (particularly since it was so different than maybe what people expected).

[cartman]

Of course if there is a partial nationalization of the banks, there will have to be something done about that. Then again, I think the banks that did over leverage deserve to be dragged out as well... as long as it doesn't create a total financial collapse.

But that's the reason you can't just say "fuck the people who took out the stupid loans". If those default in massive numbers, then it will take down the financial system, because no one really knows how leveraged the system really is. Some estimates are as high as $80 trillion, which is over 4 times GDP. So by far the cheapest way to keep things afloat in the short term is to keep the original loans that were issued from being defaulted, triggering a multiplicative effect down the line.

[DaddyTorgo]

For certain responses, Fey did, indeed, read Palin's words back verbatim. I believe it was that whole, long rambling thing about job creation and healthcare or whatever. Not all of Fey's responses were verbatim, but some were.

As for the Russia quote, while Palin didn't say she could "see Russia from my house" she did, in fact, say something very much like that. Here's the real quote:

PALIN: And, Charlie, you’re in Alaska. We have that very narrow maritime border between the United States, and the 49th state, Alaska, and Russia. They are our next door neighbors.We need to have a good relationship with them. They’re very, very important to us and they are our next door neighbor.

GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?

PALIN: They’re our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.

GIBSON: What insight does that give you into what they’re doing in Georgia?

PALIN: Well, I’m giving you that perspective of how small our world is and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good relation with all of these countries, especially Russia.

didn't i see an interview with someone who lived on that island (which has like < 100 inhabitansts or something), and he said that wasn't even true...that you couldn't see Russia?

edit: okay i'm wrong. you can see it.

Anderson Cooper 360: Blog Archive - You CAN see Russia from here! « - Blogs from CNN.com (http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/30/you-can-see-russia-from-here/)

From Alaska, it's mighty hard to see Russia: Craig Medred Columns | adn.com (http://www.adn.com/outdoors/craig_medred/story/546182.html)

Not that being able to SEE Russia really gives her any foreign policy credentials.

[PilotMan]

FWIW, I think Kramer and his show is full of it. But I do watch CNBC pretty regularly. They have some good discussion, and frequently there is some spirited debate. The stuff that Santelli said isn't all that has been going on, it's just what was publicized.

Guys go off on editorial diatribes all the time. Some of it is funny, eye opening, "wow, I can't believe that he just said that," stuff. I think that they have enough of opposing opinions that the channel is worthwhile. Certaily better than watching O'Reilly and his bs.

Some thoughts

1) people who signed on the line and now try and blame the banks for lending them the money when they knew full and well what they were doing are fuckups. They shouldn't be helped.

2) there is no such thing as predatory lending. How is any of this different than a credit card company?

3) There are people who genuinely need help. I don't want to sit by and do nothing while my home keeps dropping because houses all around me are being foreclosed on. kinda like cutting off my nose to spite my face.

[panerd]

The topic seems to have moved to Palin somehow. But to go back on topic basically the show has gathered an audience over the last 8 years of people who hate Bush and the Republican party. Why would they start slamming the audience they have made? Do you think conservatives are going to start watching the show if they go strictly after Obama? They will just lose their audience.

It would be like Married with Children or the Man Show or that ESPN NASCAR show trying to court women or The View or Ellen trying to court men. Or the NCAA Women's selection show trying to court anyone. Why piss off your base audience to try and be "fair" or balanced?

[Flasch186]

I remember this thread.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Not that being able to SEE Russia really gives her any foreign policy credentials.

Bullshit.

My office over looks the Detroit River. Every day I sit here and look across it right at Canada. In fact, I look right at the Caesars casino in Windsor. Therefore, not only do I have awesome foreign policy credentials, my gambling skills are second to none.

A little tip: jbmagic's Black Jack strategy? Totally works. Don't listen to those other guys. Do they sit and look at a casino all day? No. I don't think so.

[Passacaglia]

Bullshit.

My office over looks the Detroit River. Every day I sit here and look across it right at Canada. In fact, I look right at the Caesars casino in Windsor. Therefore, not only do I have awesome foreign policy credentials, my gambling skills are second to none.

A little tip: jbmagic's Black Jack strategy? Totally works. Don't listen to those other guys. Do they sit and look at a casino all day? No. I don't think so.

Maybe it only works if you're playing with Canadian money.

[DaddyTorgo]

LOL.

Okay, back to Stewart & Cramer

[ISiddiqui]

But that's the reason you can't just say "fuck the people who took out the stupid loans". If those default in massive numbers, then it will take down the financial system, because no one really knows how leveraged the system really is. Some estimates are as high as $80 trillion, which is over 4 times GDP. So by far the cheapest way to keep things afloat in the short term is to keep the original loans that were issued from being defaulted, triggering a multiplicative effect down the line.

Which can be done in other ways, such as allowing bankruptcy judges being able to adjust mortgages and issuing demands on the banks for taking TARP money to be involved in mortage readjustment, and not taxpayer money

[larrymcg421]

I expect Stewart will go after liberals/Dems, but often it will be in the self-deprecating "see how screwed we are" he does whenever people like John Kerry open their mouths.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Maybe it only works if you're playing with Canadian money.

They don't call 'em Loonies for nothing!

[cartman]

Which can be done in other ways, such as allowing bankruptcy judges being able to adjust mortgages and issuing demands on the banks for taking TARP money to be involved in mortage readjustment, and not taxpayer money

But that is not an option at this time, due to the changes to the bankruptcy laws made a couple of years ago.

[path12]

Have to say I find it somewhat depressing to see this devolve into the same ideology argument as usual, with the sides also shaking out as they usually do (myself included).

Seems to me that the main point is being kind of lost. I've seen Stewart go after Dems in the past. I think what really pisses him off is hypocrisy in the media, as was the case with the Crossfire incident as well.

But the corporatization and propagandizing of the media is what I loathe most in this country, so maybe I'm just seeing it through my own biased lens.

[Big Fo]

Have to say I find it somewhat depressing to see this devolve into the same ideology argument as usual, with the sides also shaking out as they usually do (myself included).


Who cares if someone fucks up. The liberal media is biased for reporting it.

[RendeR]

2) there is no such thing as predatory lending. How is any of this different than a credit card company?



If you actually believe this you really have nothing to stand on in this discussion. Credit card companies BY DEFINITION are predatory lenders.

I can point at my own mortgage and the entire process we went through as a predatory lending system. They tried over and over again to get us into and ARM. They "approved us" for $125,000 when every standard loan calculator we looked at said we could only afford 60-70k. We got a great house at a great price with a fixed rate 30 yr mortgage because we took the time to question everything these people told us. We're stubborn people who tend towards paranoia, not everyone is like that. I understand that people in general are stupid, but blaming them all for listening to so called "experts" who assure them the market will make their ARM worthwhile in 10 years is just as stupid.

You can't sit there and ignore the fact that these loan agencies and representatives and overall companies weren't pushing all of this as hard as they could to make every cent they could off people they KNEW couldn't handle the mortgages if the interest rates changed even 1%. If you do you're either far more ignorant than the people who TOOK the loans or you're simply burying your head in the sand and listening to too much National Media hype..

[Gary Gorski]

I've found Cramer to be interesting in the past so I checked out the interview online (btw, how ironic is it that the sponsor of the online segments is Bank of America considering the subject matter)

I think Cramer's problem is the format of the show. I for one like the fact that he's crazy and hits the buttons for the sound effects and stuff like that - it makes the show interesting. The problem is that he (and the other shows like Fast Money and even all the market commentators) make predictions...every day...and they have to make different ones each day. Of course he's going to be wrong - very wrong in some cases. What would your percentage of "winners" be, especially in a market like this, if you picked out a couple new stocks every day?

I don't know why he interviews CEOs on his show - almost every time I've seen him do so he says the guy is a good guy and recommends the stock and says he likes what he heard. He talks in the interview about some of them lying to him - well what CEO is going to come on the air and say that his company sucks, is bleeding cash and could be out of business by next week? Seriously?

Cramer's a bright guy - very interesting life story, very successful at trading stocks and even does offer good investing advice in his books but if you read his story about the money he made trading stocks he didn't trade hundreds or thousands of companies - he and his firm carefully picked targets and traded them. His books mention over and over that to invest properly you can't just buy what some guy (even he) says on TV - that you have to research the company, do your homework on it, look at the numbers, etc...but his TV format completely does him in. He would be much better served if he either did the show like once a week (not going to happen b/c of ratings) or devoted more of the show to educating about the market and picking a handful of stocks he really does like at the time and talking about them over and over and updating the viewers as to what "homework" he is doing on them and why he still likes or now dislikes them. Of course then people would say the show is boring because all he ever talks about is Google and financial mumbo-jumbo. The people want to see him hit the "buy, buy, buy" button on some obscure stock that they put $1000 into and are expecting it to turn into $10000 in a month and that makes for good TV but bad investing advice if taken solely at face value.

[DaddyTorgo]

I've found Cramer to be interesting in the past so I checked out the interview online (btw, how ironic is it that the sponsor of the online segments is Bank of America considering the subject matter)

I think Cramer's problem is the format of the show. I for one like the fact that he's crazy and hits the buttons for the sound effects and stuff like that - it makes the show interesting. The problem is that he (and the other shows like Fast Money and even all the market commentators) make predictions...every day...and they have to make different ones each day. Of course he's going to be wrong - very wrong in some cases. What would your percentage of "winners" be, especially in a market like this, if you picked out a couple new stocks every day?

I don't know why he interviews CEOs on his show - almost every time I've seen him do so he says the guy is a good guy and recommends the stock and says he likes what he heard. He talks in the interview about some of them lying to him - well what CEO is going to come on the air and say that his company sucks, is bleeding cash and could be out of business by next week? Seriously?

Cramer's a bright guy - very interesting life story, very successful at trading stocks and even does offer good investing advice in his books but if you read his story about the money he made trading stocks he didn't trade hundreds or thousands of companies - he and his firm carefully picked targets and traded them. His books mention over and over that to invest properly you can't just buy what some guy (even he) says on TV - that you have to research the company, do your homework on it, look at the numbers, etc...but his TV format completely does him in. He would be much better served if he either did the show like once a week (not going to happen b/c of ratings) or devoted more of the show to educating about the market and picking a handful of stocks he really does like at the time and talking about them over and over and updating the viewers as to what "homework" he is doing on them and why he still likes or now dislikes them. Of course then people would say the show is boring because all he ever talks about is Google and financial mumbo-jumbo. The people want to see him hit the "buy, buy, buy" button on some obscure stock that they put $1000 into and are expecting it to turn into $10000 in a month and that makes for good TV but bad investing advice if taken solely at face value.

I think you're right Gary. He mentions in the interview (i think it was in part 3) that he knows that nobody wants to hear him sit there and talk about P/E ratios and Tier 1 Capital levels and things like that, even though he admits that that is what he should be doing more of. It seemed to me that he did leave the door open to trying to do more of that (at one point he said "well let's try that"), but given the ratings of his show and how little clout he probably has over that type of thing I'm not holding my breath to see it change.

Maybe he'll expand "part 1" and "part 2" of his show and actually use the time to educate.

[ISiddiqui]

But that is not an option at this time, due to the changes to the bankruptcy laws made a couple of years ago.

As the housing bailout is a new bill with pushback (even among some Dems), one would think that getting a different bill that reforms the bankruptcy laws may be easier to pass.

[Flasch186]

the new bankruptcy law's timing was impeccable and evil all the same. That is all.

[cartman]

As the housing bailout is a new bill with pushback (even among some Dems), one would think that getting a different bill that reforms the bankruptcy laws may be easier to pass.

But even then, it is usually in the best interest of all parties to try and get things worked out before it hits the point of having to declare for bankruptcy.

[stevew]

I don't know enough about all that to have an opinion, but I do think watching the Daily Show is like watching a frat boy jerking off in front of a crowd of other cheering frat boys.
.

Thats a very good take on how retarded the show is.

[cartman]

I find it disturbing that at least two people posting in this thread have knowledge of what a frat boy jerking off in front of crowd is like. To each their own. :D

[RendeR]

removing misquote *sorry cartman*

Thats a very good take on how retarded the show is.


If thats all you see then you're not paying much attention to whats actually being said.

Sure its a comedy show, but discounting the actual content out of hand because you dislike the type or style of comedy is just as foolish as the people who listen to the "fast cash" tip shows.

Several people make good points in this thread that its downright pathetic that it takes a B level comedian and a stylized news show to actually focus the nation's attention on some very glaring stupidity in our government and industries.

[cartman]

Uh, why was I quoted in the above post?

[Galaril]

Jon Stewart is a better journalist on his comedy show than most of the clowns on the news networks, that was great. It's a shame people aren't asked tough questions on the other channels very often.

albionmoonlight, that was a nice summary by Sullivan you posted.

Acouple of things after seeing the whole show today. First off, I am not a big Stewart fan and feel he leans way to far to the left for my liking though I am a moderate Dem. Second, Kramer came off as a complete pussy. lol. Also, the video of Kramer from 12/22/2006 was incredibly incriminating and I am sure an eye owner for alot of average people who wer not aware of the horse trading that went on behind the scenes. Alot of the stuff appears that it could be insider-ish trading from an auditors view:). And lastly, I do agree Stewart went for the low lying fruit with this just too easy. And Stewart is about as much a biased joke as Hannity is on fox.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Repeat: Stewart is a host of a comedy show. Comparisons to "actual journalists" are curious.

[SportsDino]

One reason I could possibly see for a mortgage bailout is to minimize the effects of the massive over-leveraging of the mortgages via bundling them up and creating a new instrument that had a better than subprime rating that was then "protected" by a credit default swap.

So, going on the 25 to 1 leveraging that has been widely reported, for every $1 spent keeping a mortgage from going into default potentially saves $25 down the line.


Ding, ding, ding, ding... except we didn't get a mortgage bailout FIRST which is what should have happened. Timing is key here.

This assume mortgage debt is the true cause of the collapse (there is enough to indicate that a whole grab bag of shenanigans got into the daylight at the same time, but the mortgages were the easiest to pin it on)....

But anyway, you buy up every mortgage and give it to the gov, the gov demands that the person living there either make payments, renegotiate a sensible (for all sides) alteration of the mortgage, or get the hell off of government property. You help no 'loser' you just try to turn as many that can be reformed into winners as possible, and know exactly what your sinked cost is.

Gov guarantees the payments for x period, it reserves the right to auction the property off when it reaches some relative price threshold.

The end result is that you are keeping assets alive for a fraction of a cost it would take to buy the assets off the banks sheets. If mortgage debt truly was the problem, this prevents the massive credit crunch and subsequent liquidity freeze, in a manner that gives the government massive collateral as a backup. The government does not even really need to be on the hook for the whole mortgage, they just need to manage payments for a year or two until the economy recovers, and can space out the defaults on the mortgages into tiers so banks have times to offset the losses.

Instead they did exactly what I said they should not do, pass frickin TARP which in its ideal state was DIRECT GOVERNMENT SWINDLE OF TAX DOLLARS FOR GARBAGE, and in the actual state was redirected to secret spending accounts at the banks for who knows what (mostly MERGERS of the next generation of too big to fail banks). The credit crunch occurred anyway. Foreclosures zipped up, consumer confidence plummeted (which I think is garbage philosophy anyway), people start getting fired from otherwise productive companies because of the fear of economic collapse... spurring more foreclosures and economic fears.... it is a classic case of throwing money at symptoms instead of causes. We'll end up trillions deeper in the hole because of them using corrupt strategies instead of straightforward ones.

[stevew]

Repeat: Stewart is a host of a comedy show. Comparisons to "actual journalists" are curious.

I still think Ohlbermann is funnier than Stewart. Especially when Keith decides to get all teary eyed.

[Maple Leafs]

Thought this was a great take by Glenn Greenwald:

There's nothing unique about Jim Cramer - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/03/13/cramer/index.html)

That's the heart of the (completely justifiable) attack on Cramer and CNBC by Stewart. They would continuously put scheming CEOs on their shows, conduct completely uncritical "interviews" and allow them to spout wholesale falsehoods. And now that they're being called upon to explain why they did this, their excuse is: Well, we were lied to. What could we have done? And the obvious answer, which Stewart repeatedly expressed, is that people who claim to be "reporters" are obligated not only to provide a forum for powerful people to make claims, but also to then investigate those claims and then to inform the public if the claims are true. That's about as basic as it gets.


Today, everyone -- including media stars everywhere -- is going to take Stewart's side and all join in the easy mockery of Cramer and CNBC, as though what Stewart is saying is so self-evidently true and what Cramer/CNBC did is so self-evidently wrong. But there's absolutely nothing about Cramer that is unique when it comes to our press corps. The behavior that Jon Stewart so expertly dissected last night is exactly what our press corps in general does -- and, when compelled to do so, they say so and are proud of it.

At least give credit to Cramer for facing his critics and addressing (and even acknowledging the validity of) the criticisms. By stark contrast, most of our major media stars simply ignore all criticisms of their corrupt behavior and literally suppress it (even if the criticisms appear as major, lengthy front-page exposés in The New York Times).

[flere-imsaho]

So your solution is to have the people that made bad decisions not face any consequences at all?

Exactly! People who took out bad loans should face exactly the same consequences for their bad decisions as folks like John Thain, Dick Fuld, Chuck Prince, the management of AIG, the management of Countrywide, the management of Bear Stearns, the management of WaMU, Alan Greenspan, E. Stanley O'Neal, etc....

[molson]

Repeat: Stewart is a host of a comedy show. Comparisons to "actual journalists" are curious.

How is this determined? Is it a comedy show because Stewart says it is?

You're reciting Stewart's line that makes him untouchable in these kind of contexts. I don't buy it.

What if Fox News hired a hack comedian to make quips after news stories? (I don't watch Fox News, so for all I know they do this). Does that make them a "comedy show" and thus, exempt from any criticism?

[yacovfb]

How is this determined? Is it a comedy show because Stewart says it is?


Well, that...or the fact it's on comedy central and 90% of what is said on the show is to get laughs.

[DaddyTorgo]

Thought this was a great take by Glenn Greenwald:

There's nothing unique about Jim Cramer - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/03/13/cramer/index.html)

you left out the other great part of it

Perhaps the most egregious instance of this media cowardice is that there are very few occasions when media stars were willing to address criticisms of their behavior in the run-up to the war. With very few exceptions, they have systematically ignored the criticisms that have been voiced from many sources about the CNBC-like role they played in the dissemination of pre-Iraq-War and other key Bush falsehoods. But on those very few occasions when they were forced to address these issues, their responses demonstrate that they said and did exactly what we're all going to spend today mocking and deriding Cramer and CNBC for having done -- and they continue, to this day, to do that.
One of the very few television programs ever to address the media's complicit dissemination of Bush's pre-war falsehoods was Bill Moyers' superb 2007 PBS documentary, Buying the War (http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/transcript1.html). While most of the media propagandists whom Moyers wanted to interview cowardly refused to answer questions, Tim Russert, to his credit, did appear. Here are the excuses which Russert offered for the general role the media played in spreading Bush administration lies and the specific role Russert played in uncritically amplifying Dick Cheney's assertions about Saddam's nuclear program. I challenge anyone to identify any differences between what Cramer/CNBC did and the justifying excuses Russert offered:

[sterlingice]

Exactly! People who took out bad loans should face exactly the same consequences for their bad decisions as folks like John Thain, Dick Fuld, Chuck Prince, the management of AIG, the management of Countrywide, the management of Bear Stearns, the management of WaMU, Alan Greenspan, E. Stanley O'Neal, etc....

Exactly what consequences are these? Greenspan has had his legacy tarnished a bit. Wiki said O'Neal is on Alcoa's board after leaving with a $160M golden parachute and Prince walked away with $150M for his few years in this mess and still is an analyst for Citi.

SI

[Passacaglia]

How is this determined? Is it a comedy show because Stewart says it is?

You're reciting Stewart's line that makes him untouchable in these kind of contexts. I don't buy it.

What if Fox News hired a hack comedian to make quips after news stories? (I don't watch Fox News, so for all I know they do this). Does that make them a "comedy show" and thus, exempt from any criticism?

Isn't that what people here said Fox and Friends was? Only there, the argument was that it made it okay for them to doctor photos, not just "have a slant".

[DaddyTorgo]

How is this determined? Is it a comedy show because Stewart says it is?

You're reciting Stewart's line that makes him untouchable in these kind of contexts. I don't buy it.

What if Fox News hired a hack comedian to make quips after news stories? (I don't watch Fox News, so for all I know they do this). Does that make them a "comedy show" and thus, exempt from any criticism?

THE SHOW BEFORE HIM IS PUPPETS MAKING CRANK PHONE CALLS!! :D

pretty sure that's a big hint that he's not a "serious" journalist

[Passacaglia]

Exactly what consequences are these? Greenspan has had his legacy tarnished a bit. Wiki said O'Neal is on Alcoa's board after leaving with a $160M golden parachute and Prince walked away with $150M for his few years in this mess and still is an analyst for Citi.

SI

Fix your sarcasm detector.

[molson]

Exactly! People who took out bad loans should face exactly the same consequences for their bad decisions as folks like John Thain, Dick Fuld, Chuck Prince, the management of AIG, the management of Countrywide, the management of Bear Stearns, the management of WaMU, Alan Greenspan, E. Stanley O'Neal, etc....

Definitely - "bad" economic behavior needs to punished no matter where it happens.

-Bad mortgage buyers should be DQ'd from the credit market via their bankrupcys. They can live like roomates in shitty apartments like the rest of us did when we couldn't afford property.

-Bad bank employees that made their company's insolvent should never work in banks again. They suck at it, just like the bad mortgage buyer. It's a little different here because the company isn't inherently bad, only the people that work for it. There's a strong tendency to personify corporations in these contexts - but corporations and banks aren't people.

-Bank employees who broke the law should go to prison forever, and should have every cent of their net worth forfeited

-Bank employees who sold customers crap, in such a way that it let to profits for the bank and ruin for the customer (if this is even possible - this is just a theoretical example), should be rewarded and promoted. This isn't "bad" economic behavior. It's excellent economic behavior. The stupid customer drops out of the economy, and the smart banker survives. That's good.

[sterlingice]

How is this determined? Is it a comedy show because Stewart says it is?

You're reciting Stewart's line that makes him untouchable in these kind of contexts. I don't buy it.

What if Fox News hired a hack comedian to make quips after news stories? (I don't watch Fox News, so for all I know they do this). Does that make them a "comedy show" and thus, exempt from any criticism?

EDIT: Crap, Pass beat me to it...

How about if they hired a couple of shiny faced morons to spread propaganda with a morning variety show format and called it, say, "Fox and Friends"? It's not really news just because it's on a station called "Fox News", right?

SI

[JPhillips]

Thought this was a great take by Glenn Greenwald:

There's nothing unique about Jim Cramer - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/03/13/cramer/index.html)

It's impolite to call people who lie, liers.

[molson]

Isn't that what people here said Fox and Friends was? Only there, the argument was that it made it okay for them to doctor photos, not just "have a slant".

I'm not familiar with that show, but it sounds like a great example of someone on the right trying to get away with the same nonsense, absolutely.

Fox News is just entertainment, just like Comedy Central. They really aren't that different. And that's fine, but we should try to see it clearly. They're two extremely biased news shows using comedy to get away with stuff that "regular" news can't.

In that context, someone relying on Foxnews as their news source is just as silly as someone relying on the Daily Show.

[gstelmack]

Repeat: Stewart is a host of a comedy show. Comparisons to "actual journalists" are curious.

The problem is "actual journalists" are so few and far between these days.

[sterlingice]

Fix your sarcasm detector.

Oh, crap, that's what that noise was. Today I got to play the internet equivalent of that old guy driving down the highway with his blinker on :D

SI

[SportsDino]

Jim Cramer got destroyed, and I'm not seeing all the defenders point that Stewart did anything wrong. He brought up very true points that anyone, conservative or liberal, should have bought up.

Some stuff drifted populist, yes, but to say the whole interview with that is bull.

Besides, someone should get angry, if the media actually was as pissed off as me most days you would be seeing companies being torn a new one on a regular basis.

[DaddyTorgo]

Oh, crap, that's what that noise was. Today I got to play the internet equivalent of that old guy driving down the highway with his blinker on :D

SI

:lol:

[DaddyTorgo]

hxxp://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=221516&title=jim-cramer-interview-outtake (http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=221516&title=jim-cramer-interview-outtake)

for those that haven't seen it yet. in 3 parts

[larrymcg421]

I'm not familiar with that show, but it sounds like a great example of someone on the right trying to get away with the same nonsense, absolutely.

Fox News is just entertainment, just like Comedy Central. They really aren't that different. And that's fine, but we should try to see it clearly. They're two extremely biased news shows using comedy to get away with stuff that "regular" news can't.

In that context, someone relying on Foxnews as their news source is just as silly as someone relying on the Daily Show.

Dude, if you're trying to claim there is no difference between Fox New sand Comedy Central, then you're just refusing to live in reality. I mean, give me a fucking break.

[molson]

THE SHOW BEFORE HIM IS PUPPETS MAKING CRANK PHONE CALLS!! :D

pretty sure that's a big hint that he's not a "serious" journalist

Stewart must have been pissed when Crank Yankers got canceled, as he couldn't rely on that hollow line anymore.

[ISiddiqui]

Exactly what consequences are these? Greenspan has had his legacy tarnished a bit. Wiki said O'Neal is on Alcoa's board after leaving with a $160M golden parachute and Prince walked away with $150M for his few years in this mess and still is an analyst for Citi.

SI

He was basically saying two wrongs make a right ;).

[sterlingice]

Dude, if you're trying to claim there is no difference between Fox New sand Comedy Central, then you're just refusing to live in reality. I mean, give me a fucking break.

Are we talking about in terms of actual news reporting or their purported standing in the new community? ;)

SI

[DaddyTorgo]

lol

crank yankers was a poor execution of a good concept (the prank calls). they could have got say...russell brand to do it or something, and skip the frigging puppets

[molson]

Dude, if you're trying to claim there is no difference between Fox New sand Comedy Central, then you're just refusing to live in reality. I mean, give me a fucking break.

Somebody else made the comparison, I think to try to "trap" me into defending Fox News. Because obviously anyone who doesn't worship John Stewart must be into Bill O'Reily. But both are absolutely entertainment first and foremost. When someone says, "The Daily Show is Just Trying to be Funny", I just think that "Fox News is just trying to be entertaining". It's funny to be that people get worked up over Fox News having a conservative bias - they're just filling a niche, for cash, just like the Daily Show.

Mostly, I just think Stewart's a douchebag and it's disappointing me that someone with so little talent has this kind of success.

I hate celebrities that try to be politically relevant...When they actually succeed, it's just too much....That would go for either side of the political spectrum, though there's just more hollywood on the liberal side.

[flere-imsaho]

He was basically saying two wrongs make a right ;).

Not really. "Loser" homeowners basically made one bad decision - taking out a stupid mortgage. Everyone else I listed made a lot of bad decisions. In fact for some (O'Neal and Thain spring to mind) it could be argued that they made only bad decisions.

The moral of the story being, folks, that if you're going to fuck up, fuck up big and often, make sure you're going to take a lot of other people down with you, and don't be contrite about it. :D

[flere-imsaho]

Fox News is a news channel masquerading as entertainment.

The Daily Show is entertainment masquerading as a news show.

I can see how one would get the two confused.

Anyway, didn't Fox News, last year, develop a show to be like the Daily Show, only with a conservative slant? Is it still around?

[Passacaglia]

Somebody else made the comparison, I think to try to "trap" me into defending Fox News. Because obviously anyone who doesn't worship John Stewart must be into Bill O'Reily. But both are absolutely entertainment first and foremost. When someone says, "The Daily Show is Just Trying to be Funny", I just think that "Fox News is just trying to be entertaining". It's funny to be that people get worked up over Fox News having a conservative bias - they're just filling a niche, for cash, just like the Daily Show.

Mostly, I just think Stewart's a douchebag and it's disappointing me that someone with so little talent has this kind of success.

I hate celebrities that try to be politically relevant...When they actually succeed, it's just too much....That would go for either side of the political spectrum, though there's just more hollywood on the liberal side.

I wasn't trying to "trap" you into anything, I was just referring to this story: (POL) FOX News Alters Photos of NYT Reporters - Front Office Football Central (http://operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=66207&highlight=fox+friends) -- maybe I missed an earlier comparison, but I was just responding to:


What if Fox News hired a hack comedian to make quips after news stories? (I don't watch Fox News, so for all I know they do this). Does that make them a "comedy show" and thus, exempt from any criticism?

[DaddyTorgo]

Somebody else made the comparison, I think to try to "trap" me into defending Fox News. Because obviously anyone who doesn't worship John Stewart must be into Bill O'Reily. But both are absolutely entertainment first and foremost. When someone says, "The Daily Show is Just Trying to be Funny", I just think that "Fox News is just trying to be entertaining". It's funny to be that people get worked up over Fox News having a conservative bias - they're just filling a niche, for cash, just like the Daily Show.

Mostly, I just think Stewart's a douchebag and it's disappointing me that someone with so little talent has this kind of success.

I hate celebrities that try to be politically relevant...When they actually succeed, it's just too much....That would go for either side of the political spectrum, though there's just more hollywood on the liberal side.

problem is that fox news markets itself as a news channel and has reporters at current events like a news channel, etc

note that the daily show & comedy central do none of these things.

look at the names of the networks - it's right there

[molson]

I wonder if the Daily Show is the first "Comedy Show" to win:

-Orwell Award for Distinguished Contribution to Honesty and Clarity in Public Language
-2 Peabody Awards for their election "coverage".
-3 TV Critics Association Nominations (two wins) for "Outstanding Achievement in News and Information".

[molson]

Fox News is a news channel masquerading as entertainment.

The Daily Show is entertainment masquerading as a news show.

I can see how one would get the two confused.



I think that's a good way of putting it.

And The Daily Show has won journalism awards, but I don't think Fox News has won entertainment awards....So who's the bigger fraud?

[DaddyTorgo]

I wonder if the Daily Show is the first "Comedy Show" to win:

-Orwell Award for Distinguished Contribution to Honesty and Clarity in Public Language
-2 Peabody Awards for their election "coverage".
-3 TV Critics Association Nominations (two wins) for "Outstanding Achievement in News and Information".

the argument has been made in this thread that that's not a reflection of the content of the daily show insomuch as its an indictment of maintstream network "news" coverage (let alone cable news coverage)

[sabotai]

Stock tippers do much the same thing but in a blanket bombing technique - they publicly tip 100 companies on the stock exchange but will then only mention their 'winners' in subsequent columns/programs.

But Jim Cramer doesn't do that. He does mention the stocks he got wrong and goes into detail on how why he got them wrong. I've seen him do an entire show on some of his back picks and the mistakes he made.

As for the interview, I saw it last night and thought both of them looked bad. Cramer sat back, took it, said "Yes, you're right" while Jon Stewart preached, ranted and reminded me a lot of Bill O'Rielly with how often he interrupted Cramer just so he could rant some more.

I watched the unedited version just now and thought they both looked better. Some of the questions and lines Stewart said were made clear (some lines, in the edited aired version, sounded like set-up potshots). They showed a LOT more of Cramer talking and answering questions in the unedited version. There was even a part near then end where Stewart was apologetic for how Cramer became the face of the anger and spite directed at CNBC in general.

Yeah, Cramer took a beating (on CNBC's behalf), but whoever edited that interview to be broadcasted did a horrible job if they were trying to edit it for good content. If they were editing it to have a 20 minute long rant and preach session to get the plebs all riled up, then job well done I guess.

[molson]

the argument has been made in this thread that that's not a reflection of the content of the daily show insomuch as its an indictment of maintstream network "news" coverage (let alone cable news coverage)

That's kind of the point. The Daily Show can do things differently because they're "not news" (as they constantly remind us and some people actually buy) - which actually makes them BETTER news. But they're clearly news.

Comedy is actually a pretty effective tool to tell news, if you're trying to make point (and be funny). SNL figured this out years ago. Daily Show has just taken it a step further into legitimacy, while still pretending to be SNL. (I dont' recall Chevy Chase doing serious interviews with politicians).

[flere-imsaho]

I think that's a good way of putting it.

And The Daily Show has won journalism awards, but I don't think Fox News has won entertainment awards....So who's the bigger fraud?

The entire Fourth Estate, I think.

[Big Fo]

lol

crank yankers was a poor execution of a good concept (the prank calls). they could have got say...russell brand to do it or something, and skip the frigging puppets


A lot of those calls weren't funny some a few were outstanding. District selectman Tony Deloge <3

[SportsDino]

Definitely - "bad" economic behavior needs to punished no matter where it happens.

-Bad mortgage buyers should be DQ'd from the credit market via their bankrupcys. They can live like roomates in shitty apartments like the rest of us did when we couldn't afford property.

-Bad bank employees that made their company's insolvent should never work in banks again. They suck at it, just like the bad mortgage buyer. It's a little different here because the company isn't inherently bad, only the people that work for it. There's a strong tendency to personify corporations in these contexts - but corporations and banks aren't people.

-Bank employees who broke the law should go to prison forever, and should have every cent of their net worth forfeited

-Bank employees who sold customers crap, in such a way that it let to profits for the bank and ruin for the customer (if this is even possible - this is just a theoretical example), should be rewarded and promoted. This isn't "bad" economic behavior. It's excellent economic behavior. The stupid customer drops out of the economy, and the smart banker survives. That's good.



Do you have investment accounts molson? What is your rate of return over the last three years?

If it is negative 20% or worst, I officially dub thee stupid consumer.

If not, congrat you either were too poor to have significant investments, or you are a smart investor.

The defense 'everyone' lost money the last three years is as invalid as the assumption we should ever encourage shady banking as 'smart' for hoodwinking people. Buyer beware, hell ya, ultimately you need to protect yourself... but misrepresenting a financial product that is crap, guess what that is not just a clever trick, it actually may be FRAUD! And the cases where it is not, it has certainly crossed over the line of ethics.

Malicious competitive behavior is actually bad for the economy... it may be good for individual actors, but it can have a negative net effect. It certainly doesn't have the social darwinism effect people think it will. More slick bankers pulling fast ones and being praised for it leads too... oh wait we are already there dammit!!!

If you ask me, I could say anyone who didn't see the banks balances going explosive is an idiot. Except I know I shouldn't blanket judge people, especially when it took me years to convince myself. (And yes I still fail to hold back my vicious streak, as in right now in my attacking you when you don't deserve it)

We need to stop sweeping bad behavior under the rug and act like cruel and corrupt economies inevitably correct things to normal. Smart and ferocious economies do inevitably correct, but we don't have that with the number of crooks in board rooms and the SEC and Congress. I get irritated with all the rich being lumped into the evil CEO group, and all the poor being lumped into the dumb borrowers group... we end up with generic and useless solutions like 'raise taxes on everyone over 250K' or 'bailout all mortgages' because we don't separate out correct behaviors or necessary strategies from our blanket stereotypes. We need specific, targeted, and transparent attacks on the problems in our economy.

Again, not entirely directed at you, just a general attitude. Sorry I need to get some sleep, getting cranky!

[gstelmack]

Fox News is a news channel masquerading as entertainment.

The Daily Show is entertainment masquerading as a news show.

I can see how one would get the two confused.

Anyway, didn't Fox News, last year, develop a show to be like the Daily Show, only with a conservative slant? Is it still around?

The problem I see is that MOST news channels masquerade as entertainment. CNN certainly falls into this (I mean, come on, they sell T-shirts of their headlines, which just pushes them to make funnier headlines...), as does my local newspaper and most of my local news outlets. It's just absurd how far the media has fallen.

[sterlingice]

Again, not entirely directed at you, just a general attitude. Sorry I need to get some sleep, getting cranky!

Did someone stay up too late last night watching Syracuse-UConn? I know I did :D

SI

[molson]

Do you have investment accounts molson? What is your rate of return over the last three years?

If it is negative 20% or worst, I officially dub thee stupid consumer.

If not, congrat you either were too poor to have significant investments, or you are a smart investor.

The defense 'everyone' lost money the last three years is as invalid as the assumption we should ever encourage shady banking as 'smart' for hoodwinking people. Buyer beware, hell ya, ultimately you need to protect yourself... but misrepresenting a financial product that is crap, guess what that is not just a clever trick, it actually may be FRAUD! And the cases where it is not, it has certainly crossed over the line of ethics.

Malicious competitive behavior is actually bad for the economy... it may be good for individual actors, but it can have a negative net effect. It certainly doesn't have the social darwinism effect people think it will. More slick bankers pulling fast ones and being praised for it leads too... oh wait we are already there dammit!!!

If you ask me, I could say anyone who didn't see the banks balances going explosive is an idiot. Except I know I shouldn't blanket judge people, especially when it took me years to convince myself. (And yes I still fail to hold back my vicious streak, as in right now in my attacking you when you don't deserve it)

We need to stop sweeping bad behavior under the rug and act like cruel and corrupt economies inevitably correct things to normal. Smart and ferocious economies do inevitably correct, but we don't have that with the number of crooks in board rooms and the SEC and Congress. I get irritated with all the rich being lumped into the evil CEO group, and all the poor being lumped into the dumb borrowers group... we end up with generic and useless solutions like 'raise taxes on everyone over 250K' or 'bailout all mortgages' because we don't separate out correct behaviors or necessary strategies from our blanket stereotypes. We need specific, targeted, and transparent attacks on the problems in our economy.

Again, not entirely directed at you, just a general attitude. Sorry I need to get some sleep, getting cranky!

I put 100% of my extra money in the last three years into student loan debt (debt that I was arguably pretty stupid to take on - depending on how my legal career turns out - but I pulled myself out of it). I've been living WELL below my means in a shitty apartment, and I'm now saving for a down payment on a house (I will wait until I have 20% at least). My only investment account is mandatory retirement pension contributions through my public employer - an account that is run pretty conservatively.

The decision not to save for retirement during that time was a great one. In 4-5 years (assuming we're not living in caves), I'll have a house with with a good amount paid off, be otherwise debt-free, and just slightly behind on retirement savings (or really ahead, since any money I had put in the last 4-5 years would have been wasted). A layoff along the way wouldn't derail the plan, because I have emergency savings to get through some time and worst case scenario, I can just dump my month-to-month rental lease and get roomates again.

As for "malicious competitive behavior" - I agree with you. I'm not smart enough to know where exactly to put that line, but I have no problem with pushing the "illegal" line over to include more behaviors. But I wouldn't want so far as to make sure the consumer is protected on every transaction. Don't we need stupid consumers in the American economy? We need losers to help grow the winners. I wonder what % of consumer transactions in the US are wasteful and stupid. When there's stupidity on both sides, where both sides are harmed, that when shit seems to get fucked up. I have no problem with one side simply out-smarting the other, if legal, and as long as there's a "winner"

[sterlingice]

Somebody else made the comparison, I think to try to "trap" me into defending Fox News. Because obviously anyone who doesn't worship John Stewart must be into Bill O'Reily. But both are absolutely entertainment first and foremost. When someone says, "The Daily Show is Just Trying to be Funny", I just think that "Fox News is just trying to be entertaining". It's funny to be that people get worked up over Fox News having a conservative bias - they're just filling a niche, for cash, just like the Daily Show.

(I cut off the rest where you keep pounding on Stewart's personality since it's not relevant)

But let's go back to this. No one is forcing you to defend Fox News but you're trying to put The Daily Show on the same level as something that purports to be a legitimate news entity. If these were called "Fox Politics" or "Cable Entertainment Network" or the "New York Times GossipPaper" - no one would have any issues.

But if you want to claim to be news, you have a higher ethical standard on what you carry. You can't pretend to be bringing news if you're going to just bring propaganda or just spread gossip. And you damn well better not be offended when someone calls you on it unless you have a good defense for your own actions (and not just attacks on those making the accusations)

SI

[flere-imsaho]

The problem I see is that MOST news channels masquerade as entertainment. CNN certainly falls into this (I mean, come on, they sell T-shirts of their headlines, which just pushes them to make funnier headlines...), as does my local newspaper and most of my local news outlets. It's just absurd how far the media has fallen.

Well, exactly. For one reason or another (and I'm sure books will be/have been written on this) the Fourth Estate has abdicated its desire to practice good journalism, in general.

We all know what sells, and gets ratings, for the "news media" and in general it's not in-depth reporting on complex topics. Now, The Daily Show doesn't do this either (in-depth reporting on complex topics), but as a satire it gets mileage out of pointing out (with examples) how the news media drops the ball. It's just an added bonus that often that exercise delves a little into reporting on complex topics (oh the irony).

Further, the news media is very (perhaps overly) dependent on personalities (Stewart's initial critique of CNBC was about this specifically). A news media outlet can't afford to piss off a personality for fear that they'll stop coming on their shows, which results in a direct loss of ratings.

A very good example of this is a comparison of Maria Baritiromo's interviews with Merrill Lynch's CEO John Thain when a) he took over at Merrill Lynch (softball, fawning) and b) after he was ousted and the news about his bonuses and his $1 million bathroom makeover came out (prosecutorial, accusatory). When Thain mattered to CNBC as a guest personality, Baritiromo couldn't stop fellating him. When he no longer mattered to CNBC (because his reputation cratered), they were OK with taking the gloves off.

The Daily Show, of course, doesn't have this problem. If someone doesn't want to come on the show because Stewart pissed them off, it's unlikely to result in a net loss of ratings, because he'll get other guests. This is exactly what allows him (when he's motivated) to really grill some of his guests (who do come on the show) or skewer others (who refuse to come on the show).

But we get the news media we deserve. Americans, on the balance, stopped caring about in-depth (or even accurate) news reporting a long time ago, and the news media have simply responded to the market. It is, of course, incorrect for most news media to portray themselves as "fair", "impartial", "investigative", etc... but let's be honest - the average American doesn't give a shit anyway.

As a result The Daily Show caters to a segment of the viewing populace who agrees that the news media are full of shit and want to see them ridiculed. And let's face it, the news media are easy targets, since everything they do is recorded and The Daily Show, by all accounts, have an excellent clips staff.


The key thing is, however, that Stewart knows and admits all of this. He's not trying to be fair, he's not trying to be right, and he's not on some big crusade. He's trying to be funny, and exposing the funny in a way that appeals to his audience. And that is exactly what makes him different from the news media.

[molson]

(I cut off the rest where you keep pounding on Stewart's personality since it's not relevant)

But let's go back to this. No one is forcing you to defend Fox News but you're trying to put The Daily Show on the same level as something that purports to be a legitimate news entity. If these were called "Fox Politics" or "Cable Entertainment Network" or the "New York Times GossipPaper" - no one would have any issues.

But if you want to claim to be news, you have a higher ethical standard on what you carry. You can't pretend to be bringing news if you're going to just bring propaganda or just spread gossip. And you damn well better not be offended when someone calls you on it unless you have a good defense for your own actions (and not just attacks on those making the accusations)

SI

I agree with most of that. I think flere had it right that they're mirror images.

FoxNews pretends they're news, the Daily Show pretends they're entertainment. Neither is completely truthful.

If one "should" live up to certain journalistic standards, both should. Fox News, for what it pretends to be, The Daily Show, for what it actually is.

[gstelmack]

The key thing is, however, that Stewart knows and admits all of this. He's not trying to be fair, he's not trying to be right, and he's not on some big crusade. He's trying to be funny, and exposing the funny in a way that appeals to his audience. And that is exactly what makes him different from the news media.

I agree 100%, and am actually glad for someone like Stewart. The media needs more of this grilling so that maybe they'll start paying attention to their responsibilities again.

[Radii]

On the points that the daily show can't/won't/doesn't go after obama... its true that most of the stuff they have done on Obama has been fluff, but I can remember a number of very good segments they've done where Obama has given a speech that is pretty much exactly the same as Bush and pointed out that when Bush says the same words, he is ridiculed, but when Obama says them he's a great speaker giving us hope.

This is my favorite daily show segment this year so far:

<style type='text/css'>.cc_box a:hover .cc_home{background:url('http://www.comedycentral.com/comedycentral/video/assets/syndicated-logo-over.png') !important;}.cc_links a{color:#b9b9b9;text-decoration:none;}.cc_show a{color:#707070;text-decoration:none;}.cc_title a{color:#868686;text-decoration:none;}.cc_links a:hover{color:#67bee2;text-decoration:underline;}</style><div class='cc_box' style='position:relative'><a href='http://www.comedycentral.com' target='_blank' style='display:inline; float:left; width:60px; height:31px;'><div class='cc_home' style='float:left; border:solid 1px #cfcfcf; border-width:1px 0px 0px 1px; width:60px; height:31px; background:url("http://www.comedycentral.com/comedycentral/video/assets/syndicated-logo-out.png");'></div></a><div style='font:bold 10px Arial,Helvetica,Verdana,sans-serif; float:left; width:299px; height:31px; border:solid 1px #cfcfcf; border-width:1px 1px 0px 0px; overflow:hidden; color:#707070; position:relative;'><div class='cc_show' style='position:relative; background-color:#e5e5e5;padding-left:3px; height:14px; padding-top:2px; overflow:hidden;'><a href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/' target='_blank'>The Daily Show With Jon Stewart</a><span style='position:absolute; top:2px; right:3px;'>M - Th 11p / 10c</span></div><div class='cc_title' style='font-size:11px; color:#868686; background-color:#f5f5f5; padding:3px; padding-top:1px; line-height:14px; height:21px; overflow:hidden;'><a href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=220241&title=mess-opotamia-the-iraq-war-is' target='_blank'>Mess O'Potamia - The Iraq War Is Over</a></div></div><embed style='float:left; clear:left;' src='http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:220241' width='360' height='301' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' wmode='window' allowFullscreen='true' flashvars='autoPlay=false' allowscriptaccess='always' allownetworking='all' bgcolor='#000000'></embed><div class='cc_links' style='float:left; clear:left; width:358px; border:solid 1px #cfcfcf; border-top:0px; font:10px Arial,Helvetica,Verdana,sans-serif; color:#b9b9b9; background-color:#f5f5f5;'><div style='width:177px; float:left; padding-left:3px;'><a target='_blank' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/index.jhtml'>Daily Show Full Episodes</a><br /><a target='_blank' href='http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/important_things/index.jhtml'>Important Things w/ Demetri Martin</a></div><div style='width:177px; float:left;'><a target='_blank' href='http://www.indecisionforever.com'>Political Humor</a><br /><a target='_blank' href='http://blog.indecisionforever.com/2009/03/13/jon-stewart-and-jim-cramer-the-extended-daily-show-interview/'>Jim Cramer</a></div><div style='clear:both'></div></div><div style='clear:both'></div></div>


I had said before the election that I was worried that The Daily Show would just refuse to say anything about the left once the left was in power, and assumed that I would stop watching the show once Obama was elected. I've been pleasantly surprised often enough to continue watching, and loving the show.

[gstelmack]

This is my favorite daily show segment this year so far:

That was awesome!

[flere-imsaho]

I agree 100%, and am actually glad for someone like Stewart. The media needs more of this grilling so that maybe they'll start paying attention to their responsibilities again.

I agree, but I'm not hopeful that they'll return to their "responsibilities". The fact of the matter is that there's just not that much of a market for that kind of reporting anymore. I don't think you can survive as a cable news channel (to say nothing of newspapers) if you devote an inordinate amount of resources to the pursuit of quality journalism (and all that entails). Frankly, I think that's how we got to where we are today. The news media saw dollar signs in basically being entertainment, and rushed to get there. Now that they depend on that money, they can't go back.

After all, it's perhaps no accident that the consensus best reporting on the financial meltdown was "The Giant Pool of Money" (http://www.npr.org/ombudsman/2008/05/the_giant_pool_of_money.html) (and its follow-ups), produced by This American Life and NPR News, both of which are generally not dependent on advertising dollars.

[sterlingice]

This is my favorite daily show segment this year so far:
(return of Mess O Potamia)

I thought it was great when they did that- especially since "Mess O' Potamia" was one of my favorite word plays on the show :)

Does that clip include where he has to dust it off and everything?

(Also, go check the clip from the day after Inauguration where he does the same exact thing with him and Rob Riggle talking about Obama and Bush using the exact same rhetoric)

SI

[sterlingice]

I agree with most of that. I think flere had it right that they're mirror images.

FoxNews pretends they're news, the Daily Show pretends they're entertainment. Neither is completely truthful.

If one "should" live up to certain journalistic standards, both should. Fox News, for what it pretends to be, The Daily Show, for what it actually is.

They're mirror images in that they're opposites not the same.

But I guess that's where we disagree. If one is claiming to be news, it damn well better have higher ethical standards than a show that pokes fun at the news.

SI

[flere-imsaho]

I had said before the election that I was worried that The Daily Show would just refuse to say anything about the left once the left was in power, and assumed that I would stop watching the show once Obama was elected. I've been pleasantly surprised often enough to continue watching, and loving the show.

There was an episode last week where he really took Clinton to town for the botched PR event with the Russian foreign minister. He's warming up to it. And he's been consistently harping on the lack of spine shown by Reid and Pelosi with their majorities, comparing them (poorly) to their GOP predecessors.

[molson]

They're mirror images in that they're opposites not the same.

But I guess that's where we disagree. If one is claiming to be news, it damn well better have higher ethical standards than a show that pokes fun at the news.

SI

Fair enough - do think though, that it's POSSIBLE that for an actual news show to avoid critisism by constantly claiming that it's comedy? Do you think that that COULD happen, but maybe just that The Daily Show hasn't crossed that line? Or in other words, do you think the Daily Show can go too far? Or as long as they're on "Comedy Central", they're not news, no matter what? Is their self-identifying label as "comedy" the deciding factor?

[DaddyTorgo]

But Jim Cramer doesn't do that. He does mention the stocks he got wrong and goes into detail on how why he got them wrong. I've seen him do an entire show on some of his back picks and the mistakes he made.

As for the interview, I saw it last night and thought both of them looked bad. Cramer sat back, took it, said "Yes, you're right" while Jon Stewart preached, ranted and reminded me a lot of Bill O'Rielly with how often he interrupted Cramer just so he could rant some more.

I watched the unedited version just now and thought they both looked better. Some of the questions and lines Stewart said were made clear (some lines, in the edited aired version, sounded like set-up potshots). They showed a LOT more of Cramer talking and answering questions in the unedited version. There was even a part near then end where Stewart was apologetic for how Cramer became the face of the anger and spite directed at CNBC in general.

Yeah, Cramer took a beating (on CNBC's behalf), but whoever edited that interview to be broadcasted did a horrible job if they were trying to edit it for good content. If they were editing it to have a 20 minute long rant and preach session to get the plebs all riled up, then job well done I guess.

I only watched the unedited version which is why i thought cramer came off much better

[JPhillips]

At best Daily Show could be seen as news commentary. They really aren't reporting or breaking stories, so that level of journalism just isn't a part of their model. I'll give you that you can compare the show to news commentary shows like Hannity or O'Reilly, but that's not the extent of what it means to be a news organization. Fox, like CNN or MSNBC or even CNBC to some degree report on the day's events and look to break new stories. That makes them fundamentally different from a commentary show.

As to the Stewart/Cramer interview, it's a shame that it's being reported solely as a personal spat. The bigger issue is being completely glossed over so as to focus on Stewart "beating" Cramer.

[molson]

At best Daily Show could be seen as news commentary. They really aren't reporting or breaking stories, so that level of journalism just isn't a part of their model. I'll give you that you can compare the show to news commentary shows like Hannity or O'Reilly, but that's not the extent of what it means to be a news organization. Fox, like CNN or MSNBC or even CNBC to some degree report on the day's events and look to break new stories. That makes them fundamentally different from a commentary show.



That's a good distinction, but isn't FoxNews considered "bias" and sham news because of its commentary (Hannity and O'Reilly). When I hear people complain about FoxNews, those are the names I hear.

Is the regular, reporting news function of FoxNews similarly bias? I'd love to see an example of that.

So comparing The Daily Show to the O'Reilly Show - the difference is really what else is on the respective networks. John Stewart is protected by his environment, while O'Reilly is hindered by his. O'Reilly should hire some struggling comedians and move to Comedy Central (though they don't pay as much).

[gstelmack]

Scientists warn of 'irreversible' climate shifts :: WRAL.com (http://www.wral.com/news/national_world/world/story/4721550/): "Scientists warn of 'irreversible' climate shifts". Really? You really think this planet isn't going to reverse whatever trends are going on now? It's not going to get warmer, then colder, then warmer? We're not going to have more rain, then less rain, then more rain?

Just another example of where someone needs to be actually QUESTIONING what is being put out there rather than just regurgitating it.

[JPhillips]

That's a good distinction, but isn't FoxNews considered "bias" and sham news because of its commentary (Hannity and O'Reilly). When I hear people complain about FoxNews, those are the names I hear.

Is the regular, reporting news function of FoxNews similarly bias? I'd love to see an example of that.

I'm not going to make a huge list as I don't have the time or inclination, but there are several examples of bias in reporting. A few I remember are,

Ailes recently saying he sees the network as the Alamo against what's happening with the government.

Numerous examples of Republican lawbreakers identified as Democrats.

Carl Cameron, the reporter covering Kerry in 2004, filing false stories on how weak and French-like Kerry was.

Fox poll questions like, "Who would be the most likely to cheat at cards-- Bill Clinton or Al Gore?"

Numerous accusations of former employees saying management changed stories to better fit a GOP framing.

And on and on. I don't really care what the pundits say, just as I don't think an editorial page means anything compared to reporting at a newspaper.

[RainMaker]

So you don't think capitalism has winners and losers?

This is a very interesting world view. Tell me more.

Personally, I cheered out loud after I heard Santelli's rant.

But that's the whole point of the argument. That the guys cheering this aren't exactly capitalists. The traders there are all for capitalism for profits, but socialism for losses. It came across as distasteful to bash financially uneducated people who took out bad mortgages when the government had just handed out trillions in funds to save the companies that those traders profited from and continue to profit from.

The irony in Santelli-Cramer comparisions is that the two despise one another.

[Subby]

Scientists warn of 'irreversible' climate shifts :: WRAL.com (http://www.wral.com/news/national_world/world/story/4721550/): "Scientists warn of 'irreversible' climate shifts". Really? You really think this planet isn't going to reverse whatever trends are going on now? It's not going to get warmer, then colder, then warmer? We're not going to have more rain, then less rain, then more rain?

Just another example of where someone needs to be actually QUESTIONING what is being put out there rather than just regurgitating it.
Just because global warming and climate shift is one of your pet rants doesn't mean that this new outlet didn't do their job in reporting this news.

[gstelmack]

Just because global warming and climate shift is one of your pet rants doesn't mean that this new outlet didn't do their job in reporting this news.

Put the global warming politics aside, the use of the word "irreversible" is clearly scare tactics, which the media loves these days. Cue my segue into how the media scare tactics have helped make this economic meltdown much worse than it needed to be.

[ISiddiqui]

But that's the whole point of the argument. That the guys cheering this aren't exactly capitalists. The traders there are all for capitalism for profits, but socialism for losses. It came across as distasteful to bash financially uneducated people who took out bad mortgages when the government had just handed out trillions in funds to save the companies that those traders profited from and continue to profit from.

The irony in Santelli-Cramer comparisions is that the two despise one another.

How exactly do you know that they are "socialism for losses". Santrelli opposed TARP. Why do you think the traders that were there do not?

[RainMaker]

That's a good distinction, but isn't FoxNews considered "bias" and sham news because of its commentary (Hannity and O'Reilly). When I hear people complain about FoxNews, those are the names I hear.

Is the regular, reporting news function of FoxNews similarly bias? I'd love to see an example of that.

So comparing The Daily Show to the O'Reilly Show - the difference is really what else is on the respective networks. John Stewart is protected by his environment, while O'Reilly is hindered by his. O'Reilly should hire some struggling comedians and move to Comedy Central (though they don't pay as much).

What network they are on is definitely a major distinction in the two. I certainly have different expectations for journalism when I watch a news network vs a comedy channel.

But it's also what the shows claim to be. O'Reilly considers himself a hard hitting journalist and political commentator. O'Reilly aims to be a serious show discussing serious topics. Stewart does none of that. He's political humor and makes fun of the current events. This is like saying the Wall Street Journal opinion piece is on par with The Onion.

Those bashing Stewart for being some kind of hidden news agenda clearly don't watch his show. Serious interviews like last night come by a couple times a year. But hey, if you really think the guy who sends a reporter to a political convention to tell them he's with NAMBLA is on par with what CNN does, then we live on different planets.

[path12]

I wonder if the Daily Show is the first "Comedy Show" to win:

-Orwell Award for Distinguished Contribution to Honesty and Clarity in Public Language
-2 Peabody Awards for their election "coverage".
-3 TV Critics Association Nominations (two wins) for "Outstanding Achievement in News and Information".

I can't figure out if you are missing the larger point or if you're just deliberately being obtuse.

Regardless of your feelings about Jon Stewart, the larger point is that this is what any purported "news outlet" or journalist should be doing -- actually pointing out to the general public where they are being lied to and what the consequence of that is. The fact that an "entertainer" is one of the only people who will do this is really the crime.

Our news and media have abrogated that responsibility to the public, and the public is far worse off for it.

EDIT: I think this actually got covered more after reading more of the thread.

[Subby]

Well again, the news outlet was not ad libbing - they were just quoting the report. If they had added "irreversible" on their own, sure. But that's the crux of the story - 2,000 scientists think the effects of climate change could be irreversible.

For what it's worth, I am just nit-picking your example. I'm not saying their aren't countless examples of the media acting sensationally.

[molson]

I can't figure out if you are missing the larger point or if you're just deliberately being obtuse.

Regardless of your feelings about Jon Stewart, the larger point is that this is what any purported "news outlet" or journalist should be doing -- actually pointing out to the general public where they are being lied to and what the consequence of that is. The fact that an "entertainer" is one of the only people who will do this is really the crime.

Our news and media have abrogated that responsibility to the public, and the public is far worse off for it.

EDIT: I think this actually got covered more after reading more of the thread.

If Stewart is going to take the baton and do what "journalists should be doing" - shouldn't he be held to journalistic standards? If he's going to be admired and revered by the public and media for the way he slices and dices hypocracy, and does what CNN won't or can't do - why is it so unreasonable to insist that he have some credibility and standards, like we require from CNN?

He's doing a better job than the media, I get it. But is it a fair comparison when CNN has to be a news organization, and Stewart can just remind us that he follows puppets?

[RainMaker]

How exactly do you know that they are "socialism for losses". Santrelli opposed TARP. Why do you think the traders that were there do not?

Santelli's paycheck is paid compliments of the U.S. taxpayer. Strangely I never hear him rant about that.

[path12]

If Stewart is going to take the baton and do what "journalists should be doing" - shouldn't he be held to journalistic standards? If he's going to be admired and revered by the public and media for the way he slices and dices hypocracy and does what CNN won't or can't do - why is it so unreasonable to insist that he have some credibility and standards, like we require from CNN?

He's doing a better job than the media, I get it.

Because it's apples and oranges in my mind. CNN is a news organization. Stewart is a satirist. The fact that he can occasionally do good journalism doesn't mean that he can't be mainly a satirist. CNN may occasionally try to be funny, but I don't expect them to always be so.

RainMaker has a good analogy -- would you say that the Onion should have the same journalistic standards as the Wall Street Journal?

[RainMaker]

If Stewart is going to take the baton and do what "journalists should be doing" - shouldn't he be held to journalistic standards? If he's going to be admired and revered by the public and media for the way he slices and dices hypocracy, and does what CNN won't or can't do - why is it so unreasonable to insist that he have some credibility and standards, like we require from CNN?

He's doing a better job than the media, I get it. But is it a fair comparison when CNN has to be a news organization, and Stewart can just remind us that he follows puppets?

People can hold him to whatever standards they want. I think the majority of the public though don't tune into his show for hard hitting news. They tune in for a good laugh.

[molson]

I went to a Daily Show taping in the summer of 1999. The guest was Margaret Cho. Maybe I've never gotten over that.

It was a very different show back then. It wasn't the iconic American treasure it's become today.

[Subby]

Stewart comes off as really douchy to me.

He's been living off that act where he plays a video and makes a funny face for like a decade. He failed as a comedian because he's not funny.

The Daily Show gig, though, is quite brilliant, not because of his talent but because of the format. It's kind of disturbing how it's looked at as some kind of legitimate news show - I know Stewart always denies that that's what it is, but he's clearly trying to be relevant.
You could have saved yourself a ton of time and just typed "I don't get it" and then exited the thread.

[molson]

RainMaker has a good analogy -- would you say that the Onion should have the same journalistic standards as the Wall Street Journal?

The Onion is not equivalent to the Daily Show. Not even close.

If the Onion had legitimate interviews with politicans, printed articles about public figures saying inconsistent things, kept track of the accuracy of CNBC pundits - they'd be getting into Daily Show territory.

[sterlingice]

Fair enough - do think though, that it's POSSIBLE that for an actual news show to avoid critisism by constantly claiming that it's comedy? Do you think that that COULD happen, but maybe just that The Daily Show hasn't crossed that line? Or in other words, do you think the Daily Show can go too far? Or as long as they're on "Comedy Central", they're not news, no matter what? Is their self-identifying label as "comedy" the deciding factor?

That's a good distinction, but isn't FoxNews considered "bias" and sham news because of its commentary (Hannity and O'Reilly). When I hear people complain about FoxNews, those are the names I hear.

Is the regular, reporting news function of FoxNews similarly bias? I'd love to see an example of that.

So comparing The Daily Show to the O'Reilly Show - the difference is really what else is on the respective networks. John Stewart is protected by his environment, while O'Reilly is hindered by his. O'Reilly should hire some struggling comedians and move to Comedy Central (though they don't pay as much).

I figured I'd combine the two and respond to both since the responses can be layered. Warning- this is going to be long. I know I'm not an ethics professor but I think I have some decent legs to stand on here and I tried to give some good examples, but they may not be perfect...



First, the easy point- there are probably going to be a few posters who can enumerate Fox News's bias on a reporting basis, not just on a "commentary" show bias. You can google it easy enough. Yes, even the anchors for the basic news programs show bias. That's a gross ethical violation.

First and foremost there is the news. These are the nightly broadcasts, what CNN Headline News proports to have all day, and anything that prances around as "news". The closest thing I can think of to this is listening to the first 5 minutes at the top of the hour on NPR- I'm not talking about the second half of shows like All Things Considered and Morning Edition, where you get little couple minute analysis vignettes- these go down in a later section. Or that news show on PBS- you know, that one no one watches and is like watching paint dry. It's what the nightly news shows used to be before we had to have a segment with flashy graphics and always some sort of angle about how you can get ahead or how the man is screwing you or something.

Personally, I think AP and Reuters strive for this, tho, again, there are issues with individual reporter bias- I'm sure someone could point you to a counter-examples- lord knows there's at least one poster who likes to post every time he can find one. But, in general, this should be "just the facts".

These shows should be completely factually based and should try to present facts with no agenda. If you want to be known as a news agency- you have to be unbiased and bland, ratings be damned. If you don't- then you can't be a news agency and you get to fall under another category- see below. And, in this country, everyone gets a pony... :)



(The next two get flip-flopped but I think you'll see why when I expand on them as it was just easier to sort out the first group and then mention the other last)

Then we get to commentary- this includes O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck, Olbermann, Madow, Matthews, Cooper, Blitzer, etc. I think there is a distinction to be had between some of these. The first six, two on Fox, one now on Fox after being on CNN, and three on MSNBC- those are distinctly political commentary, every one. I don't really know Blitzer as I rarely see him but I sense he also falls into this category. Frankly, I wish they all had to be banished off to their respective areas called Fox Politics, MSNBC politics, and CNN politics. (Then again, I'd rather MTV only be allowed to play music but that's never going to happen.)

For those, everyone knows that these are political shows. But you have to have your own venue for it and you can't call it news because it's not. It's pure commentary. Not only that, but they need to be held to a factual standard where facts are not distorted and "sins of omission" must be accounted for. And in this world, those previously mentioned ponies are unicorns...



The next one gets more interesting. I admit, I don't watch it as frequently, but Andersoon Cooper seems to stay mostly away from political wrangling and mostly does what I would call investigative journalism. This is not to say it can't get political, but politics is not the main story the majority of the time. It strikes me more as a Dateline show. They seem to me like news- they report indepth stories. Facts should be doubly checked but they are allowed a small measure of commentary due to the indepth level of the story. The commentary should be the conclusion reached from the indepth analysis of the fact, not based political leanings. In this galaxy those unicorns have wings...



Then we get into the fuzzy area- Fox and Friends, Morning Joe, that crazy lady on CNN (I think she would fit here)- stuff that masquerades as entertainment with a political slant. Frankly, this needs to not be on a news station whatsoever.

Being on a news station or in a newspaper or any other supposed "news" outlet carries a far different burden of ethics than an entertainment outlet. No one is running to Entertainment Tonight, pretending its news. Everyone knows the Onion is satire because it's up front about it. Is anyone really turning to the Tonight Show to find out what happened during the day?

The Daily Show is on *Comedy Central*- they don't pretend to be the news, they have run commercials where Jon Stewart is on there saying something about how surveys have shown X% of people get their news from the Daily Show and the like followed by him yelling "DON'T DO THAT!".

The danger is what we've seen- people in the news, as opposed to entertainment, universe will speak with all the authority of news until they are called on it and only then will they invoke the defense of "we're just entertainment". That is irreprehensible and dangerous. You should not be able to flip that switch and use that easy defense- if you want to pretend to be news, you have to be willing to stand behind it, not hide behind a flimsy defense.

Only below these levels do we finally reach the Daily Show, Colbert, SNL, Tonight Show, Letterman, hell- Robot Chicken, South Park, etc in terms of level of ethical responsibility, in my mind. They don't pretend to be news. They crack jokes at the news's expense or make biting satire. There is no doubt that they are entertainment first. They do not speak with any authority of news and if you are looking for a source, any of the above levels *should* be counted on for more accurate and factual news than these.

There is stratification within all levels and this is no different. You can have a show like The Daily Show present "news". But in a vacuum, this gets no play- the only reason the majority of people are talking about it today is because it was picked up by another news outlet. It's not as if most of the people here normally watch The Daily Show.

And, if you want a real litmus test, as pointed out earlier by myself and others- the average news outlet is missing the whole point that Jon Stewart was trying to get across so clearly he isn't even being taken as news. How can we mistake what he is doing for news when the news misses the actual "news"?Again, that's more damning on the rest of the news media than anything else when a commedian is asking the "tough" questions and news outlets still aren't picking up on it at all.


And I know, now we've reached the point where the likelihood of all of this is flying pegasus unicorns running on rainbows with a pot of gold at the end of each... but at least I can hope for it.

SI

[path12]

The Onion is not equivalent to the Daily Show. Not even close.

OK, we'll have to agree to disagree. If you don't think they are both satires then Cho has warped your mind. ;)

[RainMaker]

The Onion is not equivalent to the Daily Show. Not even close.

If the Onion had legitimate interviews with politicans, printed articles about public figures saying inconsistent things, kept track of the accuracy of CNBC pundits - they'd be getting into Daily Show territory.

You do know the guy who created the format of the Daily Show was the former editor of The Onion? The Executive Producer is a former Onion staffer? It's a lot closer than you think.

[molson]

You could have saved yourself a ton of time and just typed "I don't get it" and then exited the thread.

I don't get why people can't the inconsistencies in this very thread/

People are admonishing me, telling me "It's just a COMEDY show!"...The same people are telling me how Stewart has stepped up where all other journalists have failed.

[sterlingice]

Wow- that screed of mine started back when this was at 153 and now a lot of what I wrote was already said since we're down to like 175 now... :p

SI

[RainMaker]

I don't get why people can't the inconsistencies in this very thread/

People are admonishing me, telling me "It's just a COMEDY show!"...The same people are telling me how Stewart has stepped up where all other journalists have failed.

That is why it's news. Because a fucking comedy show has more journalistic chops than most major news agencies. It's not about The Daily Show being a "news show", it's about how pathetic our current news outlets are.

It's kind of like the guy who knows nothing about sports winning your fantasy football league. It's not that he's suddenly a football guru, it's the rest of the people in the league are pathetic.

[molson]

That is why it's news. Because a fucking comedy show has more journalistic chops than most major news agencies. It's not about The Daily Show being a "news show", it's about how pathetic our current news outlets are.

It's kind of like the guy who knows nothing about sports winning your fantasy football league. It's not that he's suddenly a football guru, it's the rest of the people in the league are pathetic.

And that's where I actually have a higher opinion of Stewart than you guys. He knows what he's doing. He's figured out how to be revered as both a journalist/commentator and an entertainer. I don't think America's ever seen anything like him.

He didn't accidently stumble into political/news relevance.

[path12]

And that's where I actually have a higher opinion of Stewart than you guys. He knows what he's doing. He's figured out how to be revered as both a journalist/commentator and an entertainer. I don't think America's ever seen anything like him.

He didn't accidently stumble into political/news relevance.

Mark Twain, Will Rogers. Was Mencken American?

EDIT: Way hyperbolic. Stewart does have writers for some portion of his stuff.

[sabotai]

Mark Twain, Will Rogers. Was Mencken American?

Yes, Mencken was American.

[RainMaker]

Mark Twain, Will Rogers. Was Mencken American?

George Carlin, Bill Maher, Dennis Miller.

[Maple Leafs]

George Carlin, Bill Maher, Dennis Miller.
Carson... Letterman...

I like Stewart as much as the next guy, but let's not pretend he's created some sort of brand new form of comedy here. Telling jokes about the news and then interviewing somebody isn't exactly groundbreaking.

[JPhillips]

But he is the first to do it after a puppet show!

[larrymcg421]

Carson... Letterman...

I like Stewart as much as the next guy, but let's not pretend he's created some sort of brand new form of comedy here. Telling jokes about the news and then interviewing somebody isn't exactly groundbreaking.

Yeah I think he's most closely taken after Letterman, who he's openly spoken about as an idol. Letterman is a guy that could shift from comedy to serious as well.

[molson]

None of those have won awards for election coverage, that I'm aware of.

Not that winning an award is Stewart's "fault" - but he's more "news" than any of those examples.

Has Weekend Update ever won a Peabody? Stuart is more than just commenting on the news.

[RainMaker]

None of those have won awards for election coverage, that I'm aware of.

Not that winning an award is Stewart's "fault" - but he's more "news" than any of those examples.

Has Weekend Update ever won a Peabody? Stuart is more than just commenting on the news.

Not sure if they have, but Mad Men, Project Runway and 30 Rock have won Peabodys. So has the Office, Friday Night Lights, and Ugly Betty.

Do you even know what the Peabody Awards are?

[RainMaker]

And Satuday Night Live has won a Peabody. Just looked it up.

[JPhillips]

Not sure if they have, but Mad Men, Project Runway and 30 Rock have won Peabodys. So has the Office, Friday Night Lights, and Ugly Betty.

Do you even know what the Peabody Awards are?

Heidi Klum could infotain me any day of the week.

[molson]

Not sure if they have, but Mad Men, Project Runway and 30 Rock have won Peabodys. So has the Office, Friday Night Lights, and Ugly Betty.

Do you even know what the Peabody Awards are?

I may be misunderstanding his particular Peabody Awards - which I read as for his "election coverage", though looking again, they could have meant that in an entertainment sense.

[RainMaker]

I may be misunderstanding his particular Peabody Awards - which I read as for his "election coverage", though looking again, they could have meant that in an entertainment sense.

I don't know if you saw their election coverage, but it wasn't very serious. They sent Colbert into the Republican National Convention telling people he was with NAMBLA. If that won for news coverage and not entertainment, the Peabodys should be disbanded.

[sabotai]

Peabodys aren't given out in different categories. A Peabody is just a Peabody. They give them to people/programs for doing whatever it is they do.

The Peabody Awards | An International Competition for Electronic Media, honoring achievement in Television, Radio, Cable and the Web | Administered by University of Georgia's Grady College of Journalism and Mass Communication (http://www.peabody.uga.edu/mission.php)


The intent of the Peabody Awards is to recognize the most outstanding achievements in electronic media, including radio, television and cable. The competition is also open to entries produced for alternative means of electronic distribution, including corporate video, educational media, home-video release, World Wide Web and CD–ROM. Programs produced and intended for wide theatrical motion picture release are not eligible for a Peabody Award.


The Award is determined by one criterion – "Excellence." Because submissions are accepted from a wide variety of sources and styles, deliberations seek "Excellence On Its Own Terms." Each entry is evaluated on the achievement of standards it establishes within its own contexts. Entries are self-selected by those making submissions and as a result the quality of competing works is extraordinarily high. The Peabody Awards are then presented only to "the best of the best."

[Dutch]

Jon Stewart is very conflicted. He wants to be serious at times (like in this interview) but he needs to realize that he makes money being a comedian. If he wants to be serious, he shouldn't be on 'Comedy Central'.

Actually, I would not be surprised if he ends up on ABC, CBS, or NBC before too long as an serious "analyst/GOP skeptic" of some sort in the next few years.

[Passacaglia]

Jon Stewart is very conflicted. He wants to be serious at times (like in this interview) but he needs to realize that he makes money being a comedian. If he wants to be serious, he shouldn't be on 'Comedy Central'.

Actually, I would not be surprised if he ends up on ABC, CBS, or NBC before too long as an serious "analyst/GOP skeptic" of some sort in the next few years.

Maybe he could even have his own late night talk show on Fox.

Edit: Doh, it was MTV. That's not as funny.

[JPhillips]

Jon Stewart is very conflicted. He wants to be serious at times (like in this interview) but he needs to realize that he makes money being a comedian. If he wants to be serious, he shouldn't be on 'Comedy Central'.

Actually, I would not be surprised if he ends up on ABC, CBS, or NBC before too long as an serious "analyst/GOP skeptic" of some sort in the next few years.

Yeah, with his career on life support he needs all the fake advice he can get.

[Karlifornia]

I grew up around poor people, and was poor myself. Hell, I'm still poor. I was also raised by a not well-to-do parent. People that don't have money, and have never had money don't always know how to manage finances. I'm only now, at 25 years old, learning how mis-management of credit and money can affect you in the future. It's not that I'm a stupid person, it's just that nobody ever told me how to do it, because they didn't know how to do it themselves.

Now, you add in a lot of people who didn't have the wherewithall to achieve the capitalist American dream of a family and a house in the suburbs suddenly having someone say "Here, you can have this, and this is how it can work for you." There are a lot of people that had the same dreams that many of Americans have, but didn't have the education, knowledge, connected friends, or rich family members to know that in the long run, they were getting in over their heads.

So, if you are calling people who had trouble with their mortgages "losers", and even applauding the jackass on TV that said it, then you can....suck my dick?

[DaddyTorgo]

well said Karl

[molson]

I grew up around poor people, and was poor myself. Hell, I'm still poor. I was also raised by a not well-to-do parent. People that don't have money, and have never had money don't always know how to manage finances. I'm only now, at 25 years old, learning how mis-management of credit and money can affect you in the future. It's not that I'm a stupid person, it's just that nobody ever told me how to do it, because they didn't know how to do it themselves.

Now, you add in a lot of people who didn't have the wherewithall to achieve the capitalist American dream of a family and a house in the suburbs suddenly having someone say "Here, you can have this, and this is how it can work for you." There are a lot of people that had the same dreams that many of Americans have, but didn't have the education, knowledge, connected friends, or rich family members to know that in the long run, they were getting in over their heads.

So, if you are calling people who had trouble with their mortgages "losers", and even applauding the jackass on TV that said it, then you can....suck my dick?

I definitely think finance should be taught in every high school (but then, is it just someone else's fault if someone doesn't pay attention in school)?

At some level, personal responsibility has to enter the equation, even if someone has a valid excuse for not understanding money.

People living beyond their means and crashing and burning impacts us all. Greed is greed. Greed isn't solely a problem for the rich.

Losing control because one "doesn't know any better" is understandable, it doesn't make someone a bad person, but I don't think they should maintain a better lifestyle than I have. They SHOULD lose their house, and be pushed back into their means. And there is a financial "penalty" for that. That's not unfair.

One good thing about recessions are how they make us all more knowledge about finance. Our grandparents didn't take out car loans, or buy houses five times higher than their annual salaries with no money down. Our parents were dumber. We have a chance to be more like our grandparents.

[SFL Cat]

Any one who doesn't think ALL news reporting is biased is a bona-fide Koolaide drinker...I don't care what side of the aisle you sit on. Fox News just chose to cater to a bias that most other media sources consider politically incorrect.

[molson]

Peabodys aren't given out in different categories. A Peabody is just a Peabody. They give them to people/programs for doing whatever it is they do.

The Peabody Awards | An International Competition for Electronic Media, honoring achievement in Television, Radio, Cable and the Web | Administered by University of Georgia's Grady College of Journalism and Mass Communication (http://www.peabody.uga.edu/mission.php)

Fair enough - I withdraw the Peabody angle of my strangely bitter anti-John Stuart rant/argument. (Yes after being out of the discussion for even an hour or two, and after a nap, I can recognize my rant as strangely bitter.....Though I still think I'm onto something, I'm just not smart enough to properly spell it out here).

[sterlingice]

Yeah, with his career on life support he needs all the fake advice he can get.

(you forgot insincere)

:D

SI

[RainMaker]

I definitely think finance should be taught in every high school (but then, is it just someone else's fault if someone doesn't pay attention in school)?

At some level, personal responsibility has to enter the equation, even if someone has a valid excuse for not understanding money.

People living beyond their means and crashing and burning impacts us all. Greed is greed. Greed isn't solely a problem for the rich.

Losing control because one "doesn't know any better" is understandable, it doesn't make someone a bad person, but I don't think they should maintain a better lifestyle than I have. They SHOULD lose their house, and be pushed back into their means. And there is a financial "penalty" for that. That's not unfair.

One good thing about recessions are how they make us all more knowledge about finance. Our grandparents didn't take out car loans, or buy houses five times higher than their annual salaries with no money down. Our parents were dumber. We have a chance to be more like our grandparents.

I don't think the issue was ever over personal responsibility. The public probably doesn't want their money going toward irresponsible people. They probably also in a way side with Rick Santelli. I know that I agree with what he said.

The issue that I believe Stewart was bringing up was the way it was said and the cherry picking of this bailout. Santelli may have been against other bailouts, but he hardly put up this kind of a protest. While the bailout for homeowners included many who were not taught fiscal responsibility, the bank/mortgage/investment/insurance bailout included financially educated people who acted reckless to a level that is criminal. It seems that if you were going to take a stand over bailouts, it should have probably come toward one of the bigger entities that knew what they were doing instead of some homeowner who's life doesn't revolve around this stuff.

And of course, it's a tad hypocritical to rally against bailouts when your paycheck is paid for with the help of the U.S. taxpayer.

[RainMaker]

Jon Stewart is very conflicted. He wants to be serious at times (like in this interview) but he needs to realize that he makes money being a comedian. If he wants to be serious, he shouldn't be on 'Comedy Central'.

Actually, I would not be surprised if he ends up on ABC, CBS, or NBC before too long as an serious "analyst/GOP skeptic" of some sort in the next few years.

I don't think he's conflicted at all. He knows what his audience wants and plays to them perfectly. When he goes serious and shreds someone, it causes massive media attention for him. This story ran on every news network and throughout the blogosphere. I think the fact he can get serious and debate a major figure is what the attraction is to him.

His current contract ends in 2010 and I wouldn't be surprised to see him go to numerous major networks. He could be a replacement for Letterman at CBS. Take over Nightline on ABC. Or run a show on Fox (which may be his best fit) in his current Daily Show timeslot.

[ISiddiqui]

Santelli's paycheck is paid compliments of the U.S. taxpayer. Strangely I never hear him rant about that.

CNBC is owned by the government?

And what exactly does that have to do with anything? I don't remember him saying anything about shutting down the government... unless you are creating some new strawmen?

[ISiddiqui]

Santelli may have been against other bailouts, but he hardly put up this kind of a protest.

That's kinda not true. It just wasn't covered as highly. There is a clip around in youtube where he rails against TARP (where he is matched up against a guy who is saying it is needed to prevent total banking collapse) and basically ends up walking out on the segment.

[RainMaker]

CNBC is owned by the government?

Nope, but they are owned by GE who was bailed out by the government.

[ISiddiqui]

Nope, but they are owned by GE who was bailed out by the government.

And how much of GE's financial services division (GE Capital) contributes to the NBC Universal division? Let's see the numbers.

And one can't criticize how their employer runs things? In that case, wow, none of us could talk about anything affecting our employer.

[RainMaker]

And how much of GE's financial services division (GE Capital) contributes to the NBC Universal division? Let's see the numbers.

And one can't criticize how their employer runs things? In that case, wow, none of us could talk about anything affecting our employer.

For someone so against bailouts, I'm just a bit surprised he wasn't screaming about the government bailout toward GE. It seems he conveniently skipped over that one during his rants.

And I have no problem with his view and know that he has been against many of the bailouts (despite how stupid that view is). I just think it's odd that he didn't rail against the bailout his employer got. I didn't hear a rant about who wants to pay Rick Santelli's paycheck. It also irked me that his most defiant and forceful rant was saved for regular Joe homeowners.

[ISiddiqui]

I think he handled it quite well with his statement about the problems with TARP back in September of last year.

Also from his statement after Gibbs mentioned him, where he said he was in favor of no bailouts, for the banks, insurance companies, or homeowners.

Hell, even the Daily Kos, of all places, says Santelli has been pretty consistent on all this:

Daily Kos: CNBC's Rick Santelli: I oppose all bailouts (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/3/3/14612/59841/643/704132)

FWIW, that is my recollection of Santelli's position as I have heard it previously. He has opposed ALL of the bailouts, on principle. While some of the bailouts are more debatable than others, I think his position -- if not his intemperate remarks calling CME traders "a cross section of America -- is within the realm of reason.
I think if you asked him point blank about the GE bailout, he'd tell you he'd be against it as well. But he's not an anchor, he's a commentator. He gets asked questions by anchors of CNBC shows, and answers them.


It also irked me that his most defiant and forceful rant was saved for regular Joe homeowners.

Could it perhaps have been that it came right on the heels of the ~$800bil stimulus bill, a few months after the ~$700bil TARP bill? A feeling of when is enough, enough?

[RainMaker]

I know what Santelli's stance on bailouts has been. I watch him frequently rant. I do think his stances are foolish and not realistic (especially about the AIG bailout), so I was surprised that so many people took him serious.

Regardless of that, it just came across poorly to me. We had handed over trillions of dollars to major companies who knew the industry and fucked everyone over. He chose not to have his tea party and "loser" rant during the AIG, Bear Stearns, Fannie/Freddie, Merrill, Citi, auto, GE, etc bailouts, but when some poor people were getting money. Just seems like he picked a bad time to do it.

[ISiddiqui]

.
Could it perhaps have been that it came right on the heels of the ~$800bil stimulus bill, a few months after the ~$700bil TARP bill? A feeling of when is enough, enough?

[RainMaker]

Very well could have. Just think it was bad timing for him to finally decide enough is enough.

[ISiddiqui]

Should he have waited until the 3rd time we bailed out the automakers or something?

[RainMaker]

Should he have waited until the 3rd time we bailed out the automakers or something?

Or the first or second time we did. This was maybe the 20th bailout we've had and I just find it odd that he goes ballistic during the only one that involved helping poor people. Perhaps it's just a coincidence though.

[Glengoyne]

In this view where do inflated property values, questionable appraisals, over hyped loans, poor disclosure, and encouragement from Greenspan on down to take out these exotic mortgages come in?

I won't argue that there are irresponsible borrowers, but blaming everything on the sub-prime loan holder is just another form of ideological blindness.

Did Greenspan really advocate the "exotic" mortgages? When I see exotic, I think Interest Only and volatile variable rate mortgages. I seem to think that Greenspan's position a few years back was that the market was a bubble waiting to burst. So that part of what you say doesn't mesh with my take...but I can certainly be wrong. I don't follow the news, financial or otherwise like I used to.

On the "losers" who bought homes with sub-prime gimicky mortgages. For them, I have little to no sympathy. I just bought a home, and I reviewed pages and pages of payment schedules that clearly spelled out how much each of my payments for 30 years was going to be...how much principle would be reduced, and how much interest was being paid down. It wasn't rocket science. These people knew that they were taking a risk. If they weren't being realistic about it at the time, that certainly doesn't buy them any slack now.

So I guess I agree with Santelli(sp?)...except that he can't realistically make that argument on the floor of the stock exchange while "pimping" the financial bailout. So I agree with what he said, but he is still a moron.

[Karlifornia]

Did Greenspan really advocate the "exotic" mortgages? When I see exotic, I think Interest Only and volatile variable rate mortgages. I seem to think that Greenspan's position a few years back was that the market was a bubble waiting to burst. So that part of what you say doesn't mesh with my take...but I can certainly be wrong. I don't follow the news, financial or otherwise like I used to.

On the "losers" who bought homes with sub-prime gimicky mortgages. For them, I have little to no sympathy. I just bought a home, and I reviewed pages and pages of payment schedules that clearly spelled out how much each of my payments for 30 years was going to be...how much principle would be reduced, and how much interest was being paid down. It wasn't rocket science. These people knew that they were taking a risk. If they weren't being realistic about it at the time, that certainly doesn't buy them any slack now.

So I guess I agree with Santelli(sp?)...except that he can't realistically make that argument on the floor of the stock exchange while "pimping" the financial bailout. So I agree with what he said, but he is still a moron.

To be fair, if I was planning on doing time in Fresno, I would probably want to know when my sentence was up.

[RainMaker]

The loser talk isn't always correct either. Yes there were a lot of people who bought homes above their heads, and a lot of people who didn't know what they were getting themselves into. But there were also a lot of people who were told that a home was a solid investment (by our government and all the experts), put down 20%, took out a mortgage they could afford, and got screwed in the process.

Take a friend of mine who bought a condo for $240,000. He put $60,000 down when he purchased the condo and the rest on a fixed mortgage. His condo has dropped dramatically in value because there are so many people selling right now. His place was appraised at $175,000 a couple weeks ago when he looked to refinance at a lower rate. He has also now had his hours cut back a lot thanks to our kickass economy.

So not everyone who is upside down or in trouble did it on their own. There are a lot of people who bought homes because the experts in and out of government told them it was a good investment. A lot of people unable to pay their mortgage right now because the bad economy which was caused by no fault of their own has cost them their job. People who now have to borrow against their home because their retirement lost 40% of its value (which they were told was strong investments).

I'm not saying that everyone is innocent. Those who were reckless deserve what they get. But this bad economy has hurt a lot of honest people through no fault of their own.

[Dutch]

There are going to be ups and downs. Buy a house and it's a solid investment in 10-20 years. Not in 2.

[Karlifornia]

The loser talk isn't always correct either. Yes there were a lot of people who bought homes above their heads, and a lot of people who didn't know what they were getting themselves into. But there were also a lot of people who were told that a home was a solid investment (by our government and all the experts), put down 20%, took out a mortgage they could afford, and got screwed in the process.

Take a friend of mine who bought a condo for $240,000. He put $60,000 down when he purchased the condo and the rest on a fixed mortgage. His condo has dropped dramatically in value because there are so many people selling right now. His place was appraised at $175,000 a couple weeks ago when he looked to refinance at a lower rate. He has also now had his hours cut back a lot thanks to our kickass economy.

So not everyone who is upside down or in trouble did it on their own. There are a lot of people who bought homes because the experts in and out of government told them it was a good investment. A lot of people unable to pay their mortgage right now because the bad economy which was caused by no fault of their own has cost them their job. People who now have to borrow against their home because their retirement lost 40% of its value (which they were told was strong investments).

I'm not saying that everyone is innocent. Those who were reckless deserve what they get. But this bad economy has hurt a lot of honest people through no fault of their own.

I pretty much agree with this. Nice job, Rainmaker.

[Dutch]

BTW, somebody tell Yahoo! News headlines that Jon Stewart is just a comedy show.

TV feud raises real questions (http://www.yahoo.com/s/1043486)
After Jon Stewart grills Jim Cramer, the public looks at financial pundits in the recession. » Were they honest? (http://www.yahoo.com/s/1043486)

Obama spokesman 'enjoyed' lashing (http://www.yahoo.com/s/1043487)
Beware of a false stock market (http://www.yahoo.com/s/1043488)And in the sub "news" headlines, the Republicans get a mention!

• Analysis: Republican earmarks taint wasteful spending criticism (http://www.yahoo.com/s/1043444)




These are the things that shape my opinion that most of the news media is no different than Fox News, just slanted the other way.

[Karlifornia]

Buy a house and it's a solid investment in 10-20 years.

Is it fair to say the boom created the bust? I mean, I knew people who were using "I could just go get my real estate license" as a fall back plan for guaranteed riches, in case whatever they were actually interested in didn't pan out. Then people started buying houses in the hopes of "flipping" them at a good profit. I get the idea this isn't happening as frequently.


It's like the dot-com bubble back at the turn of the century. There was just loads of capital being tossed around for any new internet startup idea, whether it had any legs or not, because it seemed like there was plenty of money to be made. The founders of these startups had their dreams getting realized, even though the long-term chances of success were at best shaky. Why wouldn't they take the risk, if they were being given the money to do so?

These banks were willing to throw money at just about any wannabe home owner, in the hopes of making a their money back ten fold. And there is never a shortage of wannabe homeowners, because, like running your own business, owning your own home is one of the key ideals of the American dream. They were offered the money for something that they couldn't pass up.

I guess, in the literal sense of the word, they were all losers. In the colloquial sense, I don't think so.

[Flasch186]

TARP did what it was intended to do FWIW and was only torpedoed after we were through the woods by Criminal Paulson.

[Big Fo]

• Analysis: Republican earmarks taint wasteful spending criticism (http://www.yahoo.com/s/1043444)

These are the things that shape my opinion that most of the news media is no different than Fox News, just slanted the other way.

Good article, glad to see this kind of hypocrisy doesn't go unnoticed.

[Dutch]

Is it fair to say the boom created the bust?

I'd should not be surprising when a big "boom" is part of a bubble. When things are good, people are trying to "get theirs" (flipping houses and general over-pricing).

If you gamble during a bubble-boom you are being aggressive. And we all know that being aggressive gets you one of two things. More than you should've got....or fucked. If you buy a house with the intent to sell in 2 years and the bubble expands, you make easy money. If it bursts, the music has stopped and you find out you don't have a chair to sit in.

I bought a house in 2003 and sold it in 2005 and I "won" $9k. I don't know any other way for a guy like me (read: no cash) gets $9k for just enjoying living in a nice house for a couple of years. However, had I bought that same house in 2007, I would've sold it for a loss today.

On the flip-side. If you aren't trying to make a buck and are living within your means and willing to spent a long time in the house, the housing market will not affect you.

My parents bought a house for $225,000 in 1995. The value of their home has dropped $75k in the last year and if they sold today they would only be able to get $500,000 for it. (buying it in 1995 is the key here) And if they don't mind, they can chill out in their perfectly good house for another 5 years and probably sell it for $600k. Longevity obvously takes the sting away.

On a sad note, my great-great grandfather sold his beach house on Long Island in 1948 for less than $50k. The plot of land alone is worth multi-millions today and it's survived plenty of housing "crisis". Point remains, that if he wanted to, had he been able to keep that house long-term, it would've paid off.

The examples cited are from Louisana, Virginia, and New York respectively.

[Dutch]

Good article, glad to see this kind of hypocrisy doesn't go unnoticed.

As long as it's the Republicans, I can assure you, it doesn't. :)

[JPhillips]

As long as it's the Republicans, I can assure you, it doesn't. :)

It's hard out here for a pimp.

[Flasch186]

riiiiiiiiiiiiiight

that horse is so tired it wants to be shot.

[larrymcg421]

As long as it's the Republicans, I can assure you, it doesn't. :)

The black helicopters make sure of it.

[sterlingice]

BTW, somebody tell Yahoo! News headlines that Jon Stewart is just a comedy show.

TV feud raises real questions (http://www.yahoo.com/s/1043486)
After Jon Stewart grills Jim Cramer, the public looks at financial pundits in the recession. » Were they honest? (http://www.yahoo.com/s/1043486)

I know you guys like missing the point just to be obnoxious, but I just have to spell it out again.

It's a condemnation on our media that a comedy show is asking the toughest questions about the economy, not a condemnation on the comedy show.

SI

[sterlingice]

TARP did what it was intended to do FWIW and was only torpedoed after we were through the woods by Criminal Paulson.

This is going to get off track if we go too deep into this hear instead of the recession thread but I figured I'd throw this out there to you, Flasch.

I don't know if I've asked this to you yet, but isn't the continual bailout of AIG basically doing what you had suggested they did with TARP all along? It's strongly suspected that the fed basically keeps buying up toxic assets from banks through AIG. Each time they toss money at AIG, bank sheets magically clear up a bit and insurance is paid off. The dirty sticking point is that we can't see them doing it and Bernake refuses to show where the money is going.

The other thing is that I will still contend to my dying breath that there's no way $700B buys up all the toxic assets out there as the numbers I've seen are closer to $3~5T. And there's no way in hell it should be the government's job to unwind those or absorb those losses. And, after this is all said and done, we need to break out the anti-trust stick on the TBTF banks so we don't end up in this situation again (if someone gets too tied up in this crap, they need to go under and serve as a moral hazard example to others)

SI

[Flasch186]

This is going to get off track if we go too deep into this hear instead of the recession thread but I figured I'd throw this out there to you, Flasch.

I don't know if I've asked this to you yet, but isn't the continual bailout of AIG basically doing what you had suggested they did with TARP all along? It's strongly suspected that the fed basically keeps buying up toxic assets from banks through AIG. Each time they toss money at AIG, bank sheets magically clear up a bit and insurance is paid off. The dirty sticking point is that we can't see them doing it and Bernake refuses to show where the money is going.

I dont know because this isn't being done explicitly. If it is happening as you say than that is a good thing because we have avoided what I saw happening in October and November and Im also of the opinion that had Paulson not torpedoed TARP we would be even better off now that we are (this week of a bear market rally aside). Since TARP was then and it was explicit I have to credit that or else we could go around and around about all sorts of conspiracy theories and hand out credit and blame wherever we see fit for our own purposes.



The other thing is that I will still contend to my dying breath that there's no way $700B buys up all the toxic assets out there as the numbers I've seen are closer to $3~5T. And there's no way in hell it should be the government's job to unwind those or absorb those losses. And, after this is all said and done, we need to break out the anti-trust stick on the TBTF banks so we don't end up in this situation again (if someone gets too tied up in this crap, they need to go under and serve as a moral hazard example to others)

SI

the 3-5 is due to an overshoot to the downside perhaps so it could be smaller than that PLUS the 700B could be (and probably has been leveraged up) so we could be closer to the middle than you think.

[sterlingice]

I dont know because this isn't being done explicitly. If it is than that is a good thing because we have avoided what I saw happening in October and November. since TARP was then and it was explicit I have to credit that or else we could go around and around about all sorts of conspiracy theories and hand out credit and blame wherever we see fit for our own purposes.



the 3-5 is due to an overshoot to the downside perhaps so it could be smaller than that PLUS the 700B could be (and probably has been leveraged up) so we could be closer to the middle than you think.

Ok, just curious about your thoughts to those two points. Now back to the regularly scheduled thread ;)

SI

[Flasch186]

interesting...so the "bad" bank is AIG? sorry , I have to ask.

[sterlingice]

interesting...so the "bad" bank is AIG? sorry , I have to ask.




Transparency of AIG payouts to trading partners

Members of the U.S. Congress have demanded that AIG indicate to whom it is distributing taxpayer bailout funds. As an insurer, AIG pays out claims to third parties based on various types of financial contracts. Significant amounts of so-called "toxic assets" on the books of international banks were insured by AIG. In other words, funds are provided to AIG so that it can pay other companies, in effect making it a "bailout clearinghouse." Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Bernanke) stated in March 2009: "We had no choice but to try to stabilize the system because of the implications that the [AIG] failure would have had for the broad economic system. We know that failure of major financial firms in a financial crisis can be disastrous for the economy."<sup id="cite_ref-52" class="reference">[53] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIG#cite_note-52)</sup>


The huge problem is that Bernake refuses to give any information at all about the money. He had the, ahem, gumption to flat out tell Congress "No" a week or two ago when asked point blank if they would be told where taxpayer money was going.

SI

[Flasch186]

If that's the case than that is tantamount to good bank/ bad bank which I support.

[ISiddiqui]

So I guess I agree with Santelli(sp?)...except that he can't realistically make that argument on the floor of the stock exchange while "pimping" the financial bailout. So I agree with what he said, but he is still a moron.

:rolleyes:

I wonder who started this false info?

[molson]

It seems that if you were going to take a stand over bailouts, it should have probably come toward one of the bigger entities that knew what they were doing instead of some homeowner who's life doesn't revolve around this stuff.

And of course, it's a tad hypocritical to rally against bailouts when your paycheck is paid for with the help of the U.S. taxpayer.

That's that tendency to personify banks corporations that I don't think is very helpful. You can't compare banks/corporations with people. People describe Banks/Corporations like they're these giant monsters of conscious thought that we need to punish by hitting them with a whip. They're not going "learn" or feel guilty - they're not people.

I'm against a corporate bailout where the loser company/bank remains as it always was, and gets to stay solvent through taxpayer money. That's stupid for all kinds of reasons. But some kind of bailout can make sense if the taxpayers get a stake, there's many strings attached to the money, any individuals employees of the corporation that committed fraud are gone and in prison, and other employees of the corporation that just sucked are fired and gone. It's not the same "monster" anymore at that point.

EDIT: (For Lack of Reading Skills)

[RainMaker]

That's that tendency to personify banks corporations that I don't think is very helpful. You can't compare banks/corporations with people. People describe Banks/Corporations like they're these giant monsters of conscious thought that we need to punish by hitting them with a whip. They're not going "learn" or feel guilty - they're not people.

I'm against a corporate bailout where the loser company/bank remains as it always was, and gets to stay solvent through taxpayer money. That's stupid for all kinds of reasons. But some kind of bailout can make sense if the taxpayers get a stake, there's many strings attached to the money, any individuals employees of the corporation that committed fraud are gone and in prison, and other employees of the corporation that just sucked are fired and gone. It's not the same "monster" anymore at that point.

As for the second point - I've taken oaths to uphold the constitution, but I've never been required to have any particular opinion about the economy or politics. I'm also in a state where where the people prefer smaller government, and I can have been docked pay and could be laid off at any time. Calling me "hypocritical" because of my employment is just bullshit. What do you do for a living, I'd like to pick apart your opinions to make sure they're consistent. My job security, salary, and career prospects would greatly benefit from a more Democratic, and more bloated government, and yet, with my perspective working on the inside, I recognize that government is wasteful and smaller is generally better (Not because government is corrupt, but just because private is always more efficient - there's GOOD people in public service who good be making 3X as much money somewhere else). Having an opinion that goes AGAINST my own interests makes me hypocritical?

I wasn't talking about you at all. My comment was about Santelli who works for a company that received a rather large bailout. I have no idea what you do for a living or anything else about you.

As for what makes someone a hypocrit, I'd say consistency. If Santelli is against all bailout, that's fine. I completely respect his opinion that government should stay out of private business. I wonder if companies would have been this risky if they knew that the government would not help them out.

What I think makes someone hypocritical is when they have a strong opinion on something like no bailouts, but make exceptions when it involves them. Those who rail against gay people and then start screwing other guys on their own time. Someone who fights to shut down drugs and goes home at night to shoot up. That's a hypocrit to me. If Santelli had taken the same stance on the GE bailout as the others, I would have a ton of respect for him whether I agreed with him or not.

[molson]

I wasn't talking about you at all. My comment was about Santelli who works for a company that received a rather large bailout. I have no idea what you do for a living or anything else about you.

As for what makes someone a hypocrit, I'd say consistency. If Santelli is against all bailout, that's fine. I completely respect his opinion that government should stay out of private business. I wonder if companies would have been this risky if they knew that the government would not help them out.

What I think makes someone hypocritical is when they have a strong opinion on something like no bailouts, but make exceptions when it involves them. Those who rail against gay people and then start screwing other guys on their own time. Someone who fights to shut down drugs and goes home at night to shoot up. That's a hypocrit to me. If Santelli had taken the same stance on the GE bailout as the others, I would have a ton of respect for him whether I agreed with him or not.

Sorry about that - I've edited my post to remove that part

[RainMaker]

This whole mess would have been a great opportunity for Fox Business to make a name for themselves. They could have been the anti-establishment network that dug in and found what these guys were doing. The network that called out businesses for overleveraging and so forth. Their "lets paint Obama as the Manchurian candidate" isn't exactly good for a business network.

[ISiddiqui]

Of course you are basically assumining that he is for GE's bailout and being against all bailouts isn't enough for you. :rolleyes:

Can we next ask him when he stopped beating his wife?

[RainMaker]

Of course you are basically assumining that he is for GE's bailout and being against all bailouts isn't enough for you. :rolleyes:

Can we next ask him when he stopped beating his wife?

He has spoken out against every bailout so far. Just wondering why he didn't speak out on the GE one?

Maybe he is against it. Considering as an employee of GE, he has most likely accrued a nice amount of stock options over the years. It's safe to assume that opposing the bailout would be going against his best interests.

[ISiddiqui]

I realize the left is trying to engage in Limbaughization of Santrelli, but I hope most people realize how ridiculous that is. Hell, when you are to the left of the Daily Kos on an issue... you should re-evaluate.

[RainMaker]

I realize the left is trying to engage in Limbaughization of Santrelli, but I hope most people realize how ridiculous that is. Hell, when you are to the left of the Daily Kos on an issue... you should re-evaluate.

I don't really care about left or right, that's your thing. I agree with Santelli on many of his beliefs with the exception of AIG. He's probably my favorite guy on the network because he doesn't bullshit with people (and will give the talking heads on the network a tongue lashing from time to time).

My gripe with him is that if you're going to stick to the belief that all bailouts are bad and that we are helping losers, you should maintain that belief consistently down the line. Conveniently leaving GE out of the anti-bailout rants seems a tad hypocritical.

[Dutch]

riiiiiiiiiiiiiight

that horse is so tired it wants to be shot.

Or acknowledged.

[SportsDino]

I think in hindsight TARP will go down as one of the scummiest things down by politicians and businesses in this century. It will take getting out of the confusion and panic and when it is just a topic of historical curiousity before any one else acknowledges that, but I'm pretty sure of it. Much like all the stuff coming out about the sub-prime market and what else right now (because they need to blame something for trillions in losses!).

Whether it was necessary to save the market? I'll admit probably, only because banks, the Fed, and the government, did not have the brainpower, honesty, or effectiveness to implement a real solution (kill what essentially was the mother of all margin squeezes off at the source). If we are living in a society where corruption is the name of the game, that is the tool that is going to be turned to first, regardless of whether it does subsequent damage.

That damage is going to be banks even more in need of anti-trust attacks and regulatory oversight, and most likely those will not occur because everyone will be too busy sighing in relief when a recovery comes. I'm already nervous about how well the lesson is being learned, I can easily see this cycle amplifying and repeating itself again with some other finance gimick as the catalyst. I'd wager on it hitting around 2020 as a ballpark figure.

[RainMaker]

I think the intentions of TARP were good, but the execution and thought process behind it was flawed. The economy hit a point where no banks were lending at all. Literally hoarding money because they were essentially involvent. If they continued to hoard and not lend, it would have really destoyed this country.

So they panicked and drew up a "bad bank" plan that isn't a bad idea. The problem was that it was poorly presented to the public and put together so fast that details were missed. I also don't think they really knew what was going on with the banks so didn't know how to move forward. It was desperation and ultimately a bad move. But I don't think they were scum for doing it and think their heart was in the right place.

[SportsDino]

The very notion of the government assuming the worst portions of crazified debt in bulk, with obviously no oversight, is clearly the most mangled attempt at socialism in our history. To me it was pretty clear they were trying to stabilize things in a way where all the rich people were still pretty rich, instead of just stabilizing it. Either wipe out the debt AND any rewards possible from that debt together, government assumes both, which is still nasty but at least bullshitably valid and 'fair'. Or guarantee the banks and their liabilities, but wipe out their shareholders either entirely or with large government 'paper ownership' of the banks.

If TARP did exactly what it was created and intended to do, it already WAS the most crooked, scummy, thing you could imagine. It might as well have been called welfare for bad banks. That is just if it was exactly as advertised, the whole plan does not pass the common sense test. That it was corrupted and turned into an outright handout was an obvious second step, once they saw they could put out pure garbage in plain sight and be called heroes for it, they realized they could go all out.

What resulted is the market did JUST WHAT I DESCRIBED. It wiped out 90% plus of the shareholder equity in those banks. The rewards from those toxic assets which the banks were trying to game so hard to retain while offloading the debt, evaporated anyway, as everything had to be marked to zero anyway after the foreclosure sponsored margin call accelerated.

We are in the same boat we would have been in if government money was more carefully targeted or we viciously beat the shit out of the bank leadership, the only difference is we spent billions (well a couple trillion at least) in order for a few millions of dollars to be redistributed to various players.

The simple thought is going to be, well there was a real crisis of liquidity, something needed to be done, and sadly it is correct, it will blind people for a decade or so until they go back, study it, and realize that we spent many times more than we had to, and for very shady reasons. It will take that much time probably before people can separate out 'panic, something must be done, it was done, it was the right thing' from 'panic, something must be done, but all we truly did was something, and it was not the right thing'. Right now whenever I bring it up with people I always get labeled as some form of inaction-advocate, when my position is actually take more energetic and deep action than funding the finance industry's latest force-fed plan.

[sterlingice]

The very notion of the government assuming the worst portions of crazified debt in bulk, with obviously no oversight, is clearly the most mangled attempt at socialism in our history. To me it was pretty clear they were trying to stabilize things in a way where all the rich people were still pretty rich, instead of just stabilizing it. Either wipe out the debt AND any rewards possible from that debt together, government assumes both, which is still nasty but at least bullshitably valid and 'fair'. Or guarantee the banks and their liabilities, but wipe out their shareholders either entirely or with large government 'paper ownership' of the banks.


I agree with the general thoughts of the post, but I do have one quibble. I fail to see how this is socialist in the least. Socialism would be letting the banks fail and giving the money to the people. This was/is the gross extreme of capitalism- take money from everyone and give it to the rich, with the government as an intermediary.

I really, really hope there is an attempt to completely revamp regulations as there was in the 30s. I mean, hell, a lot of why we are here is because we started rolling back a lot of those regulations in the name of more profit. But I'm worried it's the easiest time to have interests dictate government policy in our history and our government will be too stupid and self absorbed to do what is right.

SI

[SportsDino]

Thats why I called it mangled socialism, its socialism for the socialites! There is a real notion of entitlement and mutual backscratching in our nation's elite, they probably think it is the pinacle of capitalism, but anyone who has studied enough history can see it is the standard pooling of power at the top to keep alive one standard of living while assuming the great mass of people are some form of peasants. It starts to resemble fuedalism after a point if you ask me.

It is very much how socialism truly worked out. You have a party elite that enjoy vast power and perks, and a whole lot of other people that are simply means to that end. Occaisonally the masses do well, if the overall situation is naturally in a good state, but they basically are left to the ravages of economic change. They also tend to be used as a buffer to damage of the elite, cuts come first among the great crowd until there is nothing left to cut and the elites need to give up things.

We are not quite there, but the trends are not encouraging. There seems to be an entire class of high powered financial actors that see various large pools of consumer money as something that is to be harnessed and extracted, rather than truly invested. They need the massive wealth generation of the country to keep enjoying the priveleges they have acquired, but at the same time they are killing the engines of that wealth generation so they feel in control of the top of the pyramid. That is not how capitalism works, it is a process of creative cooperation and destruction, where unnatural barriers and extraction of wealth are pure inefficiency. Unchecked you can grind the machine to a halt, trying to hard to control or to game it makes the entire engine inoperable. This is the moral hazard when we start supporting institutions 'too big to fail', or get credit crunches because the mass leveraging and gambling has gone beyond the thresholds probability can sustain. You can bet one loan will not fail, and survive probably 95% of the time, you can not bet 35 loans will not fail and survive more than 5% of the time.

[sterlingice]

Simple question: how is that not the endgame of capitalism? How is that "not how capitalism works"? How is erecting scary entry barriers by oligopolies not the true endgame of capitalism?

Also, it's scary how many times I have used the term feudalism in the last 6 months, too :(

(Maybe it's time to finally polish off that economy thread I've been wanting to post for a few months- it's more open ended theory questions than anything and I think you'd enjoy answering some of them. :) )

SI

[lungs]

Big governmnent and big business are both bad. Where does that leave me?

[SportsDino]

It is not the end game of capitalism, it is the end of capitalism! Capitalism assumes that competitive and cooperative forces are free to act. That freedom is under attack every time the government supports oligopolies with subsidies, favored laws, and lax enforcement of laws.

I mean, if you follow the Deep Capture storyline, didn't one part even mention that the tendency for SEC investigations to occur on 'targets' of the shorters. Meanwhile there are numerous stories of the SEC/government ignoring companies breaking laws, such as with Madoff, or Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac (which were protected by no less than Congress).

Capitalism does not PREVENT people setting up little board room fiefdoms and running their companies into the ground. In some ways once you have enough muscle you can keep that going for a while. However, capitalism doesn't encourage that outcome either... if we were rational actors we would want to know where our investment dollars are going and that they are being spent effectively, and the investor class would boot out this generation of CEOs that are snivelling incompetents. Unfortunately, they own the majority shares (that whole wealth concentration in the top percentage point has its downsides) and consequently the decisions made are to support their agendas more often then advancing a company.

If capitalism is working properly, those companies running a bloated mess for the golden parachute generation of CEOS would be beat out by hungry efficient companies that swoop in with less debt, less fat, and more ideas. Unfortunately consumer loyalty and established market presence is bad enough for a new face (even one doing an exemplary job with a better product at lower price)... but now the government has proven its loyalties lie with this aristocracy as well. We are seeing massive subsidies with no strings attached (otherwise we might vote in a change at these businesses), the attackers that might push reform from within the private sector (new businesses) will not even get in the door most likely.

The good news is that generally we have enough new entrants in various sectors to keep the overall economy heading in the right direction. But the trends are towards stagnation in many core areas, in some cases you see outright stalling or even attacks on progressive business ideas (for instance the resistance to pollution controls, lack of alternative energy businesses although many basic technologies have been on the brink for years, a car industry with a thumb stuck up its ass after years of wasting cash and being insanely conservative). We need some of these big boys that can't hack it anymore to get out of the way, but no one seems to think you can start businesses anymore unless its in some niche area or random tech.

Anyhoo, simplify it, capitalism when it is working should lead to diverse and often changing companies in the market. It does not naturally tend to oligopolies, although you'll find some economists out there who probably publish as such. The more energy is spent towards maintaining some random power structure at the top of business, the less benefits and good solutions will come out of the capitalism process. I liken it to being a third world dictator, you can increase your stay in power by killing anyone with half a brain who could potentially threaten it, unfortunately you are killing the people most likely to improve your nation. Sheep are good for maintaining rule, but not maintaining growth! I consider bailouts as likely killing off chances that good banks/businesses would grab market share from the reckless players... so we'll continue to see reckless play and further damage.