Any thinking person who watched the recent Jon Stewart-Jim Cramer confrontation could come away with no other conclusion but that it was a complete disaster for Cramer. Not only did Stewart make him look like an idiot, he produced clear evidence that he was also, during his trading days, a criminal.
That’s not how Allessandra Stanley of the New York Times saw it.According to her, Stewart was playing right into CNBC’s hands:
Mr. Stewart made his feelings clear. “I understand you want to make finance entertaining,” he told Mr. Cramer. “But it’s not a game,” he said, using an additional adjective that was bleeped out. “When I watch that, I can’t tell you how angry that makes me.”
Part of Mr. Stewart’s frustration may stem from the fact that while he clearly won the debate, Mr. Cramer and CNBC stood to profit from the encounter. In today’s television news market, that cable network and its stars are like the financiers they cover: media short-sellers trading shamelessly on publicity, good or bad, so long as it drives up ratings. There isn’t enough regulation on Wall Street, and there’s hardly any accountability on cable news: it’s a 24-hour star system in which opinions — and showmanship — matter more than facts.
…
Mr. Stewart kept getting the last word, but Mr. Cramer may yet have the last laugh.
Apparently, CNBC has yet to understand that it stands to profit from the encounter. Its sister network, MSNBC, was told to make no mention of Cramer’s drubbing, and indeed, it was not one of the five things Olbermann thought we might be talking about last night, even though most of us were. CNBC itself has gone silent on the subject, but is apparently none too pleased that Stewart has revealed it to be a naked Emperor.
It is hard to see how Ms. Stanley could come to the conclusion she did. This may be a case of journalistic wagon circling. That might be understandable, if the people she is protecting were real journalists.
Post a Comment