Jon Stewart vs Jim Cramer

[Fred Garvin]

Just watched a clip of The Daily Show where Stewart takes on Cramer for having advised buying Bear stock. Hilarious. If I wasn't suck a Luddite I'd post a link.

I saw it on CNN so you could probably find it there as well.

[blobfan]

Is it this clip from March 2008?http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=164178&title=broken-arrow

[Fred Garvin]

Is it this clip from March 2008?http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=164178&title=broken-arrow

No, this is recent. In fact Cramer responded this morning on The Today Show. That actually shows his reaction to the Stewart clips so that is the funniest.

[Fred Garvin]

Okay, today's La times site has a clip of the morning Today appearance with Meredith whatshername.

[Cheesehead]

Stewart pretty much nails the guy over and over w/ his clips. Cremer should shut up now & admit he told folks to buy Stearns

[blobfan]

OK. I think I have the Daily Show post you referred to but couldn't find the clip on the LA Times site. You know, if you aren't comfortabel creating a live link you could just copy the address and post it as text. Ctrl+C is the short-cut for copy and Ctrl+V is the short-cut for paste.

http://www.businessinsider.com/jon-stewart-attacks-cramer-again-2009-3

[Snipe]

Cramer didn't seem to get any heat when he endorsed Obama. Now that he questions the Messiah's economic plan people are pulling out Bear Stearns quotes. Why wasn't Jon Stewart running these comedy bits a long time ago?

Why now? Had Cramer toed the party line would these comedy bits ever have surfaced?

[Emp]

I've also heard "they" also published maps to his house. Yes, John Stewart surely is getting his talking points from the West Wing.

Fractured Metaphor Department: I am having trouble imagining the towing of some party line...is that like a clothes line, what? In lefty circles at least, one is expected to toe the line, line up straight. http://grammartips.homestead.com/toetheline.html

[Fred Garvin]

Cramer didn't seem to get any heat when he endorsed Obama. Now that he questions the Messiah's economic plan people are pulling out Bear Stearns quotes. Why wasn't Jon Stewart running these comedy bits a long time ago?

Why now? Had Cramer towed the party line would these comedy bits ever have surfaced?

Gimme a break.

[Xman95]

Cramer didn't seem to get any heat when he endorsed Obama. Now that he questions the Messiah's economic plan people are pulling out Bear Stearns quotes. Why wasn't Jon Stewart running these comedy bits a long time ago?

Why now? Had Cramer towed the party line would these comedy bits ever have surfaced?

Stewart's a leftist douchebag! (A funny one though.)

[XUglow]

We have Creamer vs. Gulbis and Stewart vs. Cramer. What about Creamer vs. Cramer? (Both on the right, btw.)

http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/2396/l2502102cj1.jpghttp://nymag.com/daily/intel/20070425cramer.jpg

[Kahns Krazy]

I've also heard "they" also published maps to his house. Yes, John Stewart surely is getting his talking points from the West Wing.

Fractured Metaphor Department: I am having trouble imagining the towing of some party line...is that like a clothes line, what? In lefty circles at least, one is expected to toe the line, line up straight. http://grammartips.homestead.com/toetheline.html

Fractured Metaphor Department? Grammartips.com?

Get over yourself.

[XU 87]

I've also heard "they" also published maps to his house. Yes, John Stewart surely is getting his talking points from the West Wing.

Fractured Metaphor Department: I am having trouble imagining the towing of some party line...is that like a clothes line, what? In lefty circles at least, one is expected to toe the line, line up straight. http://grammartips.homestead.com/toetheline.html

And just what exactly are you trying to say?

[THRILLHOUSE]

Cramer didn't have much luck on his Colbert Report appearance last week either.

[Fred Garvin]

I've also heard "they" also published maps to his house. Yes, John Stewart surely is getting his talking points from the West Wing.

Fractured Metaphor Department: I am having trouble imagining the towing of some party line...is that like a clothes line, what? In lefty circles at least, one is expected to toe the line, line up straight. http://grammartips.homestead.com/toetheline.html

Huh? Once again The Emp confuses circumlocution with eloquence.

[Emp]

And just what exactly are you trying to say?

it started here...

Originally Posted by Snipe View Post
Cramer didn't seem to get any heat when he endorsed Obama. Now that he questions the Messiah's economic plan people are pulling out Bear Stearns quotes. Why wasn't Jon Stewart running these comedy bits a long time ago?

Why now? Had Cramer towed the party line would these comedy bits ever have surfaced?

My dig is this: There is no meaning to the often misused slogan "tow the line," or the even more fractured "tow the party line"[sic].

My circumlocutious apologies for not explicitly and in greater detail connecting the dots.

[blobfan]

it started here...

Originally Posted by Snipe View Post
Cramer didn't seem to get any heat when he endorsed Obama. Now that he questions the Messiah's economic plan people are pulling out Bear Stearns quotes. Why wasn't Jon Stewart running these comedy bits a long time ago?

Why now? Had Cramer towed the party line would these comedy bits ever have surfaced?

My dig is this: There is no meaning to the often misused slogan "tow the line," or the even more fractured "tow the party line"[sic].

My circumlocutious apologies for not explicitly and in greater detail connecting the dots.

If we tried to correct people every time they screw something like this up, our heads would explode. How many times have you seen someone use the phrase "could of" or "should of" on a message board? As long as people make a basic attempt to use punctuation, caps and basic spelling conventions, we should be content.

JMHO. ;)

[Snipe]

Thanks Emp. I didn't know the origin of the phrase. I knew the meaning but not the history. Thanks.

[Cheesehead]

Facing each other tonight on The Daily Show. Should be entertaining.

[THRILLHOUSE]

I think Jon Stewart just ended Jim Cramer's career. Cramer should never have addressed that segment about CNBC, he could have avoided all of this.

[BBC 08]

Cramer smelt the glove.

[Snipe]

link (http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/entertainment_tv/2009/03/daily-show-cramer-stewart.html)

Stewart was brilliant. You can watch clips at the link above. Cramer got his ass handed to him. The private tapes of Cramer teaching how to manipulate the market when he was a hedge fund guy is damning. Thrillhouse may be right, that should probably end Cramer's career.

My only question is why this is coming out now? I would like Garvin to explain that to me. Stewart again attacked Rick Santelli last night. Stewart never mentioned Santelli before Rick came out against the bailout. And I don't think that Stewart ever cared about Cramer until Cramer came out against Obama's economic plan. The timing is not a coincidence and I don't know how anyone could argue against that.

Stewart always wants it both ways, he has a comedy show but he also is taken seriously. Last night was as serious as a piece can get. Stewart is a leading source for news among younger Americans and he is brilliant. I don't agree with his politics but I admire the man and his work. He makes me laugh and think.

Jim Cramer endorsed Obama last fall and said that if McCain was elected we would have a depression. Nobody questioned or exposed Cramer then. Jon Stewart has tapes of Cramer talking about manipulating markets for the benefit of a hedge fund that date back to 2006. Why are those coming out now, right after Cramer shifted and came out against the Obama economic plan?

Stewart wants to be taken seriously and he is taken seriously. But shouldn't the spirit of his own line of questioning be applied to his coverage? Why didn’t Stewart tell us this before? Why is he telling us now? My only question is the timing.

I will say this again, and Fred can attack me for being a delusional conspiracy theorist. If Cramer doesn’t come out and call Obama the biggest destroyer of wealth in American history a few weeks ago none of this would have seen the light of day. The most damning evidence against Cramer that Stewart has dates back to 2006. If Stewart was serious he could have warned us before the crash and people could have saved money by not listening to Jim Cramer. The only difference between now and a month ago is that Jim Cramer switched from an Obama backer to an Obama detractor. When Cramer was firmly in the Obama camp, these tapes were not news. Why are they news now? Does anyone want to give me an alternate explanation (other than Garvin’s “give me a break”)?

[picknroll]

Cramer didn't seem to get any heat when he endorsed Obama. Now that he questions the Messiah's economic plan people are pulling out Bear Stearns quotes. Why wasn't Jon Stewart running these comedy bits a long time ago?

Why now? Had Cramer toed the party line would these comedy bits ever have surfaced?

Right on, Snipe. Cramer has helped a lot of people, including himself, create wealth. What has Stewart done to advance humanity's cause? Boo-yah!

[Snipe]

Right on, Snipe. Cramer has helped a lot of people, including himself, create wealth. What has Stewart done to advance humanity's cause? Boo-yah!

I am a fan of Jon Stewart and not a fan of Jim Cramer.
Maybe you like Jim Cramer. I don't think he is anything special. I think the interview between them that I linked to is quite damning of Cramer. You should watch it.

[Snipe]

Former Congressman Calls for Investigation of CNBC's Jim Cramer (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-poor/2009/03/12/former-congressman-calls-investigation-cnbcs-jim-cramer)


"You know, a lot of times when I was short and I was positioned short, meaning I needed it down, I would create a level of activity beforehand that could drive the futures," Cramer said in the three year-old video. "Similarly, or if I were long, and I would want to make things a little bit rosy, I would go in and take a bunch of stocks and make sure that they're higher and maybe commit five million in capital to it and I could affect it."

It is not stunning that this happened, the stunning fact is that a former hedge fund manager would talk so candidly about market manipulation. And he isn't even charged with a crime or under indictment. This is not testimony or information that he is giving up to get a lighter sentence. He admitted to manipulating the market, and he sought to teach others how to manipulate the market. But not on his tv show, where he was selling the market with his corporate sponsors. The whole thing stinks.

[Cheesehead]

I agree on Stewart's timing but I think he is allowed to have it both ways to some extent due to the format of the show. His show is entertainment first, true news second. Whereas CNBC should be news first, entertainment second (as Stewart noted during the interview).

His point was why doesn't a network like CNBC do more investigational reporting rather than accept everything that these companies were telling them at face value. Stewart probably found these old clips after the fact, after all of this went down.

He makes fun of his show constanly, calling it the "fake news". It was interesting to see how pissed Stewart was while interviewing Cramer. I wonder how much his 401k has tanked thus far?

[Snipe]

For the record not everyone on CNBC was a cheerleader.

Peter Schiff was Right (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw&feature=related)

Schiff called the whole thing well before it happened. He has many videos on youtube. If people listen to what he said then maybe they would listen to what he has to say now.

To play devil's advocate: in Cramer's defense have you ever seen his show? He acts like a clown. Seriously, the man is a clown. If Stewart is a funny man doing straight news, Cramer is a hedge fund manager doing stand up. They both blur the lines.

I think the big thing here is the video of him (Cramer) teaching people how to manipulate markets. CNBC has some great analysts (Schiff, Santelli) and some clowns (Cramer).

"Be careful who advice you buy, but be patient with those who supply it. Advice is a form of nostalgia, dispensing it is a way of fishing the past from the disposal, wiping it off, painting over the ugly parts and recycling it for more than its worth." (Sunscreen (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xavFb4WH7o0))

[Fred Garvin]

I agree on Stewart's timing but I think he is allowed to have it both ways to some extent due to the format of the show. His show is entertainment first, true news second. Whereas CNBC should be news first, entertainment second (as Stewart noted during the interview).

His point was why doesn't a network like CNBC do more investigational reporting rather than accept everything that these companies were telling them at face value. Stewart probably found these old clips after the fact, after all of this went down.

He makes fun of his show constanly, calling it the "fake news". It was interesting to see how pissed Stewart was while interviewing Cramer. I wonder how much his 401k has tanked thus far?

Stewart needs to get over himself. He mocks his show, but takes himself very seriously as some sort of self-fashioned media ombudsman.

As to Snipe's conspiracy theories, they are conspiracy theories. He actually thinks Ron Brown was murdered. And we all remember when he was squawking about Abel Danger.
So Snipe, get some credibility and get back to me.

[Fred Garvin]

I am a fan of Jon Stewart and not a fan of Jim Cramer.
Maybe you like Jim Cramer. I don't think he is anything special. I think the interview between them that I linked to is quite damning of Cramer. You should watch it.

Didn't you tell me your wife was a big fan of "Mad Money"?

[XU 87]

Snipe has a point. Why is Jim Cramer in the news so much the last few weeks? John Stewart's ratings are probably fairly minimal, but the media has picked up on this whole thing. The interview is even on the front page of my computer home page. What has happened in the last few weeks to spark all of this coverage?

This reminds me of the Saturday Night Live during the election. The media fell over themselves covering how SNL presented Palin as being a moron. Someone told me that SNL has been making fun of Pelosi lately. But I haven't heard anything from the media about that. But making fun of Palin is important political coverage and makng fun of Pelosi is just some comedy show.

Did anyone see Mathews' interview with Ari Fleischer?

[Fred Garvin]

Snipe has a point. Why is Jim Cramer in the news so much the last few weeks? John Stewart's ratings are probably fairly minimal, but the media has picked up on this whole thing. The interview is even on the front page of my computer home page. What has happened in the last few weeks to spark all of this coverage?

This reminds me of the Saturday Night Live during the election. The media fell over themselves covering how SNL presented Palin as being a moron. Someone told me that SNL has been making fun of Pelosi lately. But I haven't heard anything from the media about that. But making fun of Palin is important political coverage and makng fun of Pelosi is just some comedy show.

Did anyone see Mathews' interview with Ari Fleischer?

And how many people watch Cramer's show? Let me ask you this: How many people were even aware of Jim Cramer's politics? I know Snipe was because he watches his show. Although he now disowns the guy since he's been exposed as the charlatan he always was.

[Kahns Krazy]

Stewart needs to get over himself. He mocks his show, but takes himself very seriously as some sort of self-fashioned media ombudsman.

As to Snipe's conspiracy theories, they are conspiracy theories. He actually thinks Ron Brown was murdered. And we all remember when he was squawking about Abel Danger.
So Snipe, get some credibility and get back to me.

I couldn't agree more with the first statement. Stewart is playing both sides of his own status in a way that he would mercilously rip anyone else for.

It's easy to wait until shit hits the fan and then point at the direction if came from. Try being the guy that has to predict which way the shit is coming.

I heard Stewart made some comment about how Cramer's advice made his parent's 401(k) tank. First of all, it's highly unlikely that Stewart's parents have stocks in a 401(k) that Cramer has actually recommended. Most 401(k)'s are limited to certain funds. Second, anyone basing their retirement on a fool on TV deserves to be beaten down. Third, investing for the future is all about personal responsibility. It's not Cramer's fault that anyone listened to him.

If you go out and pay a personal financial consultant to evaluate your goals and objectives and risk sensitivity and that guy steers you down a path that is inappropriate, you have some right to be upset with your professional. If you watch some clown on TV and make substantial moves based on what he says, you're an idiot.

[Fred Garvin]

I just don't like the angle that this is some coordinated, widespread media attack on Jim Cramer. It isn't, it's Jon Stewart picking a fight. He's always enjoyed a good feud and knows they play well.

What is more disturbing to me is when you listen closely to Stewart. He's not advocating middle-of-the-road Clintonianism. No, he preaches the gospel of Chomsky and Eric Alterman. The gospel that says all corporations are inherently conservative. They then take the leap that all the neworks these corps own are conservative. That's funny, Viacom owns Comedy Central and is doesn't seem to have put a muzzle on Stewart.

[XU 87]

And how many people watch Cramer's show? Let me ask you this: How many people were even aware of Jim Cramer's politics? I know Snipe was because he watches his show. Although he now disowns the guy since he's been exposed as the charlatan he always was.

Relatively few people watch Cramer's show. Even less were aware of his politics. He was a relatively insignificant person as compared to other media members until he said Obama's economic policies are terrible. Now Cramer's pretty big news? Why?

I could care less about John Stewart. But the media thinks it's a big deal that Stewart is attacking Cramer. And the media thought it was a big deal that SNL mocked Palin.

And did I call your dad "Mr. Garvin" yesterday?

[sirthought]

Relatively few people watch Cramer's show. Even less were aware of his politics. He was a relatively insignificant person as compared to other media members until he said Obama's economic policies are terrible. Now Cramer's pretty big news? Why?

I could care less about John Stewart. But the media thinks it's a big deal that Stewart is attacking Cramer. And the media thought it was a big deal that SNL mocked Palin.

And did I call your dad "Mr. Garvin" yesterday?

Enough people watch Cramer's show and all the financial networks that when someone goes on TV and speaks it effects the markets. That's sound too obvious, I know, and any talk about the market will effect someone, but this Cramer is on everyday. A lot of people looking to invest their money look to him and his network as a starting point of where to put it. And many don't walk much further than that.

These networks have a case that their own business will make them eat themselves. It is impossible to go on TV and pick things right 100% of the time. I think if they truly put their resources into investigative journalism they'd eventually have a hard time getting anyone to be a guest on their show, thus leading to no advertising. Being a guest could all lead to disaster if reporters were really asking hard questions. Finance is driven by greed and fear, but if the fear is on in living color everyday it's going to kill ratings, which CNBC can't allow.

CNBC needs ratings. Even though it's TV, a channel like CNBC gets fewer viewers than does something like NPR's All Things Considered. I've shopped media buys with both and have seen enough data to believe that. I used to work for a competitor of Jim Cramer who happens to be HQ'd in Cincinnati. I wrote the marketing material to sell it. And boy did it sell, no matter how unbelievable the story was.

Back when CNBC was a puppy and Cramer was only a frequent guest, he wasn't spending as much time making money through his hedge fund as he was selling his know-how through publications like newsletters and e-mail alerts. Getting on TV an acting like a maniac helped him sell more newsletters. That's the business I was in and while my old boss doesn't have his own show he still goes to NYC once a month to be a talking head on all of the shows. They are smart men but the service they sell is VERY risky and always borderline unethical. Few people could realistically make money the way they spun it on paper. I eventually couldn't handle the BS they sold anymore.

I don't know that CNBC will improve. John Stewart is kicking them while they are down, which is kind of cheap, but he's right to show the public how they can't be gullible to it all. Plus, it's funny to watch these know-it-alls squirm.

[GuyFawkes38]

Stewart takes himself a little too seriously sometimes. Your a comedian/entertainer. Your no different than a juggler (And I like jugglers). People watch you to laugh. Lighten up.

[Fred Garvin]

Enough people watch Cramer's show and all the financial networks that when someone goes on TV and speaks it effects the markets. That's sound too obvious, I know, and any talk about the market will effect someone, but this Cramer is on everyday. A lot of people looking to invest their money look to him and his network as a starting point of where to put it. And many don't walk much further than that.

These networks have a case that their own business will make them eat themselves. It is impossible to go on TV and pick things right 100% of the time. I think if they truly put their resources into investigative journalism they'd eventually have a hard time getting anyone to be a guest on their show, thus leading to no advertising. Being a guest could all lead to disaster if reporters were really asking hard questions. Finance is driven by greed and fear, but if the fear is on in living color everyday it's going to kill ratings, which CNBC can't allow.

CNBC needs ratings. Even though it's TV, a channel like CNBC gets fewer viewers than does something like NPR's All Things Considered. I've shopped media buys with both and have seen enough data to believe that. I used to work for a competitor of Jim Cramer who happens to be HQ'd in Cincinnati. I wrote the marketing material to sell it. And boy did it sell, no matter how unbelievable the story was.

Back when CNBC was a puppy and Cramer was only a frequent guest, he wasn't spending as much time making money through his hedge fund as he was selling his know-how through publications like newsletters and e-mail alerts. Getting on TV an acting like a maniac helped him sell more newsletters. That's the business I was in and while my old boss doesn't have his own show he still goes to NYC once a month to be a talking head on all of the shows. They are smart men but the service they sell is VERY risky and always borderline unethical. Few people could realistically make money the way they spun it on paper. I eventually couldn't handle the BS they sold anymore.

I don't know that CNBC will improve. John Stewart is kicking them while they are down, which is kind of cheap, but he's right to show the public how they can't be gullible to it all. Plus, it's funny to watch these know-it-alls squirm.


Gee, I had no idea that something like CNBC doesn't get the ratings of NPR. Thanks for telling us networks get higher ratings than fragmented cable. BTW, what is your evidence that these cable shows truly influence the markets? They are on all the time when I'm at the gym and whenever an anaylst comes on you can here derision from everyone in the room.

Jim Cramer is on everyday therefore people listen to him? Have you ever heard of buyer beware? Of course you think we need Stewart "to show the public they can't be gullible to it all."

Why would some idiot listen to Cramer? Jon Stewart would have you think that Cramer is compromised and manipulating people. And he'd be right. But the real reason is that people are too lazy to do their own homework. Of course that argument doesn't have any sizzle so Stewart has no need for it.

[sirthought]

Gee, I had no idea that something like CNBC doesn't get the ratings of NPR. Thanks for telling us networks get higher ratings than fragmented cable. BTW, what is your evidence that these cable shows truly influence the markets? They are on all the time when I'm at the gym and whenever an anaylst comes on you can here derision from everyone in the room.

Jim Cramer is on everyday therefore people listen to him? Have you ever heard of buyer beware? Of course you think we need Stewart "to show the public they can't be gullible to it all."

Why would some idiot listen to Cramer? Jon Stewart would have you think that Cramer is compromised and manipulating people. And he'd be right. But the real reason is that people are too lazy to do their own homework. Of course that argument doesn't have any sizzle so Stewart has no need for it.

Feeling snippy, Fred? No, I don't think we need Stewart. I just stated that is what his rants are boiling down to this time. But it's amazing the attention he's brought to the topic of the media not playing their role of watchdog in this case. It's not a bad thing. And if people don't like Stewart's message there's an easy way to fix that.

Based on my experience in the industry I think those CNBC programs do effect the markets. Our company focused on timing the market for options so we followed closely who was talking about what and watching what was bought and sold. I'm a media guy, so I followed the media. People will have their own reasons for listening to Cramer, but he's been on air for years now someone is buying into it. Cramer is just one part of any trend to buy/sell, but once information hits his program it's usually a good sign of something peaking that trend (according to my old boss' approach, and we usually acted contrary to those trends to find profit opportunities).

[GoMuskies]

CNBC is pretty limited in the kind of information they can get from execs of public companies in interviews anyway because of Reg. FD. Those execs cannot give out any material non-public information in one of those interviews. The live interviews with execs are pretty much a waste.

[THRILLHOUSE]

Stewart never would have gone in on Cramer like he did if Cramer never would have opened up his mouth after that CNBC piece. When Jon did the CNBC piece he was criticizing the whole network not going after Cramer specifically, but Cramer had to go on all the NBC shows calling out Stewart and put his face on the whole "controversy". If this doesn't happen Stewart would have just moved on after the CNBC piece and go back to what he normally does on the Daily Show. If you think Jon Stewart is going to let someone call him out in the media and not do anything about it, then you don't know Jon Stewart.

[Strange Brew]

Did anyone see Mathews' interview with Ari Fleischer?

No, I'm sure it was entertaining though.

For the record Mathews is not a journalist, he is at best a cheerleader.

[nuts4xu]

And did I call your dad "Mr. Garvin" yesterday?

I sure did. He got a kick out of it too.

[GuyFawkes38]

Stewart never would have gone in on Cramer like he did if Cramer never would have opened up his mouth after that CNBC piece. When Jon did the CNBC piece he was criticizing the whole network not going after Cramer specifically, but Cramer had to go on all the NBC shows calling out Stewart and put his face on the whole "controversy". If this doesn't happen Stewart would have just moved on after the CNBC piece and go back to what he normally does on the Daily Show. If you think Jon Stewart is going to let someone call him out in the media and not do anything about it, then you don't know Jon Stewart.

ugghhh. I like Stewart. But this is what I was referring to about Stewart taking himself way too seriously. I want to laugh when I watch the Daily Show. I don't want to see a comedian try to enhance his stature by becoming a 3rd rate investigative journalist.

Give us comedy, damn it. Yes, this Cramer affair might be entertaining. But it's entertaining in an awkward manner.

[THRILLHOUSE]

ugghhh. I like Stewart. But this is what I was referring to about Stewart taking himself way too seriously. I want to laugh when I watch the Daily Show. I don't want to see a comedian try to enhance his stature by becoming a 3rd rate investigative journalist.

Give us comedy, damn it. Yes, this Cramer affair might be entertaining. But it's entertaining in an awkward manner.

Would you rather have Stewart let some putz like Cramer go around in the media take shots about him and outright lie like he did? Yeah dedicating a whole week to this might have been a bit much but overall I don't have a problem with how Stewart handled it. Although you can make the argument Jon should have just ignored him and not give that putz so much attention, but whats the fun in that? :D Plus I would guess Thursday's Daily Show was probably one of the highest rated episodes of TDS.

[GuyFawkes38]

Funny quote (http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/03/18/the-revenge-of-tucker-carlson/)from Tucker Carlson that I just stumbled upon. I don't know if it makes me admire John Stewart more or less. At least it makes him seem sincere.


Cynics might assume that the fury [behind the excoriation of Cramer] was a pose. Humor requires ironic detachment, and nobody as funny and sophisticated as Jon Stewart could possibly be getting that mad on TV over something so abstract. A fair assumption, but wrong. Stewart really was enraged. It was all entirely, strangely real.

I know this from my own run-in with Stewart, on CNN’s Crossfire a few weeks before the 2004 election. Stewart spent a couple of segments lecturing Paul Begala and me about how we were somehow “helping the politicians and the corporations,” a charge that baffled me then (I’ve never particularly liked either one), as it does now.

Unlike most guests after an uncomfortable show, Stewart didn’t flee once it was over, but lingered backstage to press his point. With the cameras off, he dropped the sarcasm and the nastiness, but not the intensity. I can still picture him standing outside the makeup room, gesticulating as the rest of us tried to figure out what he was talking about. It was one of the weirdest things I have ever seen.

Finally, I had to leave to make a dinner. Stewart shook my hand with what seemed like friendly sincerity and continued to lecture our staff. An hour later, one of my producers called me, sounding desperate. Stewart was still there, and still talking.