I think WT makes some good points here, not the least of which is that consumers bear responsibility for being more informed. That said, CNBC deserves every bit of beat down they get - though that will only make a difference if their ratings actually suffer for it. Clowning the network is one thing but unless people stop watching, it won't really matter.
I am confused though - what exactly is the gov't supposed to regulate? Cable business shows?
I think WT makes some good points here, not the least of which is that consumers bear responsibility for being more informed. That said, CNBC deserves every bit of beat down they get - though that will only make a difference if their ratings actually suffer for it. Clowning the network is one thing but unless people stop watching, it won't really matter.
I am confused though - what exactly is the gov't supposed to regulate? Cable business shows?
The government should regulate trading. I am not up on some the details of it, but as far as naked short selling goes, which I am under the impression was one of the things Cramer was talking about in the clip -- the concept of selling a stock you don't technically own seems a little suspect. And the credit default swaps market is completely unregulated and, from what I've been told, now surpasses the actual stock market in value and volume.
When things become so obscured that the very people involved in the trades don't know what exactly they're trading, it's gotten out of control.
As far as cable news goes, I would not be opposed to a government label of shows being "news" or "entertainment." Folks like Cramer and Maddow and O'Reilly would have to pick one or the other, or at least label specific segments as opinion.
What's interesting is that despite being a comedy show, people watch TDS for cutting through the BS and opinion of cable news networks. Myself included.
I think WT makes some good points here, not the least of which is that consumers bear responsibility for being more informed. That said, CNBC deserves every bit of beat down they get - though that will only make a difference if their ratings actually suffer for it. Clowning the network is one thing but unless people stop watching, it won't really matter.
I am confused though - what exactly is the gov't supposed to regulate? Cable business shows?
The government should regulate trading. I am not up on some the details of it, but as far as naked short selling goes, which I am under the impression was one of the things Cramer was talking about in the clip -- the concept of selling a stock you don't technically own seems a little suspect. And the credit default swaps market is completely unregulated and, from what I've been told, now surpasses the actual stock market in value and volume.
When things become so obscured that the very people involved in the trades don't know what exactly they're trading, it's gotten out of control.
As far as cable news goes, I would not be opposed to a government label of shows being "news" or "entertainment." Folks like Cramer and Maddow and O'Reilly would have to pick one or the other, or at least label specific segments as opinion.[/b]
For real, too many people think this is the news. The news isn't a left or right or whatever view.
Just to be clear, the idea that the Gov't needs to tell us what should be labeled as news or opinion is a f_cking frightening prospect. Last thing I want is another W. regime (or even Obama) labeling anything I watch as 'false-news', and giving claim that any discordant information is to be ignored.
The advent of the 24hr news channel was destined to divide the 'news' content amongst ideological beliefs. if anything, major news shows should be looking to take this opportunity to give us solid news and then the rest could be considered as more outliers.
Charlie Rose reminds me of Peter Sellers in 'Being There', like by just not really saying much people think he's really smart, but I suspect he is not. I have never really gotten much out of his show.
Isn't the real joke that out all the news that is reported on the big 4 + Fox etc TDS is a candidate for a legit news source? I mean what does that say about media in America?
Charlie Rose reminds me of Peter Sellers in 'Being There', like by just not really saying much people think he's really smart, but I suspect he is not. I have never really gotten much out of his show.
Watching him interview someone in contemporary music (Danger Mouse and Jay-Z are two that spring to mind) is quite humorous. Talk about "U sound white/old/disconnected." I applaud him for getting in there, but it's still funny.
Mostly, the much-hyped Thursday night showdown between Jon Stewart and Jim Cramer, the mercurial host of ???Mad Money??? on CNBC, felt like a Senate subcommittee hearing.
Mr. Stewart treated his guest like a C.E.O. subpoenaed to testify before Congress ??? his point was not to hear Mr. Cramer out, but to act out a cathartic ritual of indignation and castigation.
I think your opinion of last night's "interview" pretty much reflects what you felt about Cramer before you watched it (personally I loved it). I think Cramer took his lumps and recieved a huge amount of free promotion.
Now I'm going to bow out of this thread to make room for more of the usual boring ass Soulstrut Right-Left blah blah blah.
For a while Jon Stewart was criticized for not being tough enough on his guests. Can't really say that anymore. He's definitely stepped up his interview game since the days of giving out Twinkies to dictators (Pervez Musharraf). I think he realized the comedy show host defense for throwing out softball questions was getting a little tired.
19. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.
20. Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him.
21. If he is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him.
22. If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant.
as if that was a tactic; he just made the biggest public relations blunder of his career by appearing on that show... when the time came for him to defend himself he couldn't do it, even though he had a lot of cogent arguments at his disposal as whitetea succinctly pointed out.
whoever said there is no such thing as bad publicity is a moron.
He did it for the sport of it, and played it how it should have been played (fake contrite/ignorant). Nothing's really changed--back to business as usual...
Holy moses did Cramer get spanked. I didn't especially like how Stewart didn't let Cramer get a word in, but Cramer also didn't have any strong points to make.
Cramer also looked TERRIBLE. Did he not think to, I don't know, put on a decently fitting shirt and get some advice on how he conducts himself in an interview? Leaning forward, darting eyes, rolled up sleeves... like he just rolled in from a coke binge. Awful.
nothing he could do but take the lumps. but as i saw it, it really had little to do with Cramer and everything to do with the 'journalistic integrity' of CNBC.
He's the public face of what's wrong with the situation. He's not the top of the pyramid, but he's the most visible. And those are usually the ones that pay. Meanwhile, the head guys behind the scenes get to say, "What? Huh? No way we approve of that."
Isn't the real joke that out all the news that is reported on the big 4 + Fox etc TDS is a candidate for a legit news source? I mean what does that say about media in America?
The painfully obvious, unfortunately. But then again, The Daily Show is ultimately owned by Viacom - another media conglomerate. So is there really any news that can be trusted?
Isn't the real joke that out all the news that is reported on the big 4 + Fox etc TDS is a candidate for a legit news source? I mean what does that say about media in America?
The painfully obvious, unfortunately. But then again, The Daily Show is ultimately owned by Viacom - another media conglomerate. So is there really any news that can be trusted?
Are you suggesting that big media is not, in fact, fair and balanced?
To me, it's not so much a question of who owns what but whether or not journalists are able to (or willing to) perform one of the basic functions of a free press, which is to question and interrogate authority. And whether it's because your news channel is more or less an ideological soapbox - Fox, MSNBC - or simply toothless for fear of losing ratings or angering corporate masters, the state of televised journalism is pretty pathetic. I think PBS does a commendable job and, like it or not, but the The Daily Show's mission to skewer anything they can get a laugh out of actually makes them useful too. But jesus, if the choices are between John Stewart and Jim Leher?
Comments
I am confused though - what exactly is the gov't supposed to regulate? Cable business shows?
The government should regulate trading. I am not up on some the details of it, but as far as naked short selling goes, which I am under the impression was one of the things Cramer was talking about in the clip -- the concept of selling a stock you don't technically own seems a little suspect. And the credit default swaps market is completely unregulated and, from what I've been told, now surpasses the actual stock market in value and volume.
When things become so obscured that the very people involved in the trades don't know what exactly they're trading, it's gotten out of control.
As far as cable news goes, I would not be opposed to a government label of shows being "news" or "entertainment." Folks like Cramer and Maddow and O'Reilly would have to pick one or the other, or at least label specific segments as opinion.
Myself included.
For real, too many people think this is the news. The news isn't a left or right or whatever view.
The advent of the 24hr news channel was destined to divide the 'news' content amongst ideological beliefs. if anything, major news shows should be looking to take this opportunity to give us solid news and then the rest could be considered as more outliers.
until that day comes, give me some Charlie Rose.
and BBC news
Charlie Rose reminds me of Peter Sellers in 'Being There', like by just not really saying much people think he's really smart, but I suspect he is not. I have never really gotten much out of his show.
Watching him interview someone in contemporary music (Danger Mouse and Jay-Z are two that spring to mind) is quite humorous. Talk about "U sound white/old/disconnected." I applaud him for getting in there, but it's still funny.
Are you commies trying to say the free market can't provide us with substantive news programming???
You voted twice for George W. Bush.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/14/arts/television/14watc.html?_r=1&hp
I think your opinion of last night's "interview" pretty much reflects what you felt about Cramer before you watched it (personally I loved it). I think Cramer took his lumps and recieved a huge amount of free promotion.
Now I'm going to bow out of this thread to make room for more of the usual boring ass Soulstrut Right-Left blah blah blah.
Love that dude, though!
Agreed. And he's relatively untouchable, too.
He's in a unique position to watch the Watchmen.
19. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable;
when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we
are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away;
when far away, we must make him believe we are near.
20. Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder,
and crush him.
21. If he is secure at all points, be prepared for him.
If he is in superior strength, evade him.
22. If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to
irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant.
Cramer knows what's up...
as if that was a tactic; he just made the biggest public relations blunder of his career by appearing on that show... when the time came for him to defend himself he couldn't do it, even though he had a lot of cogent arguments at his disposal as whitetea succinctly pointed out.
whoever said there is no such thing as bad publicity is a moron.
Report on getting straight HERBED on TDS?
Yeah, I can see why they're maintaining radio silence.
Cramer also looked TERRIBLE. Did he not think to, I don't know, put on a decently fitting shirt and get some advice on how he conducts himself in an interview? Leaning forward, darting eyes, rolled up sleeves... like he just rolled in from a coke binge. Awful.
STILL
He's the public face of what's wrong with the situation. He's not the top of the pyramid, but he's the most visible. And those are usually the ones that pay. Meanwhile, the head guys behind the scenes get to say, "What? Huh? No way we approve of that."
The painfully obvious, unfortunately. But then again, The Daily Show is ultimately owned by Viacom - another media conglomerate. So is there really any news that can be trusted?
Are you suggesting that big media is not, in fact, fair and balanced?
To me, it's not so much a question of who owns what but whether or not journalists are able to (or willing to) perform one of the basic functions of a free press, which is to question and interrogate authority. And whether it's because your news channel is more or less an ideological soapbox - Fox, MSNBC - or simply toothless for fear of losing ratings or angering corporate masters, the state of televised journalism is pretty pathetic. I think PBS does a commendable job and, like it or not, but the The Daily Show's mission to skewer anything they can get a laugh out of actually makes them useful too. But jesus, if the choices are between John Stewart and Jim Leher?