Jim Cramer scheduled to be guest on Thursday's "The Daily Show"

[Impaler[WrG]]

Asher: I agree wholeheartedly, Stewart cemented his credentials as the foremost Critic of out time, a modern day Mark Twain and history will remember him as such. Cramer might benefit in the short term but theirs no way his stature is improved by this in the long run.

[GePap]

Meh... I enjoyed Crossfire. I liked (and still do) Carville, Novak, Begala, and Carlson. Far better than what has replaced it.

Ah, Stewart isn't to blame for that, - CNN is to blame for whatever crap they put on.

[DinoDoc]

Asher: I agree wholeheartedly, Stewart cemented his credentials as the foremost Critic of out time, a modern day Mark Twain and history will remember him as such.

Am I the only one that thinks it is sad that if Cramer (despite the truthfulness of the attacks on him) had said Bush was to blame for everything no one would have said anything about him?

[Darius871]

Asher: I agree wholeheartedly, Stewart cemented his credentials as the foremost Critic of out time, a modern day Mark Twain and history will remember him as such. Cramer might benefit in the short term but theirs no way his stature is improved by this in the long run.

OMG, speaking of overdoing it... "a modern day Mark Twain"??? I feel dirty defending Cramer even the slightest bit, but he was right the other day to note that any comedian can pick ANY stock analyst and conveniently clip out a bunch of embarassing quotes (whether out of context or even in context), because it's not an exact science. Buffett, Soros, anybody. And of course the many good calls go unreported, because as Stewart himself said, it's tough to report on a truck that's not on fire.



And frankly even the idea that CNBC or other financial reporters have some lofty responsibility to rake lying CEOs over the coals is ridiculous. Their job is being entertaining enough to boost ratings, just like Stewart's is. We know this. Stewart has already been lambasting FNC, CNN, MSNBC, etc. for years to no avail, because at the end of the day they're entertainment, not journalism, let alone regulators. If you want to get to the bottom of the "other market" then blame bad regulation, lack of vigor at the SEC, lack of sufficient budget/resources at the SEC, or other things that have some real control, not snippets of some silly newsertainment goons' meaningless mental masturbation. What a non-issue.

[GePap]

Am I the only one that thinks it is sad that if Cramer (despite the truthfulness of the attacks on him) had said Bush was to blame for everything no one would have said anything about him?

Probably not. You aren't the only right wing partisan on this site.

Would a non right wing partisan think that? No.

[GePap]

Stewart has already been lambasting FNC, CNN, MSNBC, etc. for years to no avail, because at the end of the day they're entertainment, not journalism, let alone regulators.

And yet, these channels(okay, not MSNBC) have the words "News' on their titles. So are you saying that they are guilty of wholesale false advertising? Cause when i see the word "News" on a channel's title, I expect reporting (hell, maybe even journalism).

[DinoDoc]

A non right wing partisan might find the masturbatory tone regarding a modern day Twain more than a little unseemly.

[GePap]

What does that hyperbole have to do with your assertion that somehow this is driven by Cramer's diss of Obama?

As if Stewart didn't diss Obama himself.

[Darius871]

And yet, these channels(okay, not MSNBC) have the words "News' on their titles. So are you saying that they are guilty of wholesale false advertising? Cause when i see the word "News" on a channel's title, I expect reporting (hell, maybe even journalism).

That perception says more about the viewer than it does about the entertainer. Do viewers go there for "news" as in interesting facts about things happening? Sure. Do viewers go there for meticulously detailed hard-hitting investigative journalism exposing a fetid swamp of naked short-selling & other barely-legal securities trading techniques, shaky leverage ratios, etc.? No, because those facts, though perhaps important to their material well-being, are not interesting to them. Hence the networks adapt to the demands of the markets they serve. It's the same story with CNBC and hacks like Cramer, which is why I don't expect him to act like Edward R. Murrow. Apparently Stewart does.

[DinoDoc]

What does that hyperbole have to do with your assertion that somehow this is driven by Cramer's diss of Obama?

Let's just say the timing of the feud leads one to that conclusion as all these supposedly important issues existed before this "weeklong feud of the century." I've also seen the sweetheart interviews he gives to those he's more likely to agree with politically.

[Darius871]

So did he actually do anything different on his show today?

Apparently, he didn't really do anything different today, which isn't terribly surprising.

In fact he side-stepped it entirely, albeit with a so-so joke:



"Business as usual" indeed...

[DaShi]

What does that hyperbole have to do with your assertion that somehow this is driven by Cramer's diss of Obama?

Because DD saw the thread title and thought, Jim Cramer? I don't know who that is, but I read a conservative article that said someone with that name said something negative about Obama.

After looking at the thread, Still no idea what's going on here. So many big words. I'll just throw in this Obama comment. It doesn't belong here, but if people ignore it, I'll just keep posting about politics until they acknowledge it. Afterall, I've got a reputation of a ignorant conservative hack to keep up and this is vintage.

[DinoDoc]

Don't you feel dirty cheating on NGR, DaShi?

[GePap]

That perception says more about the viewer than it does about the entertainer. Do viewers go there for "news" as in interesting facts about things happening? Sure. Do viewers go there for meticulously detailed hard-hitting investigative journalism exposing a fetid swamp of naked short-selling & other barely-legal securities trading techniques, shaky leverage ratios, etc.? No, because those facts, though perhaps important to their material well-being, are not interesting to them. Hence the networks adapt to the demands of the markets they serve. It's the same story with CNBC and hacks like Cramer, which is why I don't expect him to act like Edward R. Murrow. Apparently Stewart does.

Since when does "news" mean "any **** that happens" ?

Stewart has every right to rip these people because while they may be entertainement, they do NOT accept that title themselves. The people at Fox news or CNN claim they are reporters. Heck, they even have people in the press pool, Press still meaning reporting, as opposed to getting the wrinkles out of shirts.

Stewart has never once claimed to be anything other than a comedian. The people he lampoons continually make claims to their expertise or credentials as something other than fellow entertainers.

[DaShi]

Apparently, he didn't really do anything different today, which isn't terribly surprising.

That's because Jim is a blowhard and deeply unethical man. I remember when he was crying about the bad advice he gave that cost so many people their homes. Boo hoo. The next day it was back to the gong and buttons. Jon may have exposed him and CNBC for the douchebags that they are, but nothing will change, if the people keep watching it and hope to get fast money from their phony advice.