Jon Stewart basically kills Jim Cramer

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by sabotai

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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: "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]

Originally Posted by molson

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]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

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]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Scientists warn of 'irreversible' climate shifts :: WRAL.com: "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]

Originally Posted by Subby

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]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

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]

Originally Posted by molson

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]

Originally Posted by 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".

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]

Originally Posted by path12

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]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

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]

Originally Posted by molson

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]

Originally Posted by molson

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[molson]

Originally Posted by path12

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]

Originally Posted by molson

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?

Originally Posted by molson

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]

Originally Posted by molson

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]

Originally Posted by molson

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]

Originally Posted by Subby

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...

SI

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

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]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

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]

Originally Posted by molson

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]

Originally Posted by path12

Mark Twain, Will Rogers. Was Mencken American?

Yes, Mencken was American.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by path12

Mark Twain, Will Rogers. Was Mencken American?

George Carlin, Bill Maher, Dennis Miller.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

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]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

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]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

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]

Originally Posted by molson

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

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

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

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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

(you forgot insincere)



SI

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.