It's probable that every knowledgeable Wall Street person including Cramer also knew that Madoff was a fraud because the return was too steady and high.

The following quote is just as relavent to the business media as it is to political mainstream new media coverage.

"The media stars in Washington almost never understand that there's anything wrong with the establishment of which they're a part." - Glen Greenwald

Because the focus is on Washington, New York, the insiders, who think they know everything and are codescending to those in other locales, we get this highly selfish, screw the peons attitude from both the politicians and media. The way the media and our politicians treat us has got to stop. I hope this is only the beginning of exposing the men (and women) behind the curtain.
We're adults, so stop treating us like children!!

The focal point for change must be with journalism…. As John Stewart has pointed out in his takedown of Jim Cramer, mainstream American journalism must promote the public’s values. He makes it clear that this is a serious matter insofar as the economy is concerned. It is equally important insofar as electoral reform is concerned.

Journalists and editors and owners of mainstream journalism, in some magical alchemy I don‘t understand, will decide whether electoral reform is to be a matter of public discussion or not, despite the efforts of NPR, PBS, and Bill Moyers. Are bloggers yet wielding enough heft to make the discussion of electoral reform priorities a matter of full public discussion? Democracy itself hasn’t really been a major point of public focus since women’s suffrage. Public discussion of HAVA was almost non-existent. Will a discussion about the importance of electoral reform get into the schools? Will it include any federal standardization? Will it settle the “Paper or electric?” debate once and for all? Will it ever balance the playing field? Will it normalize politics to a standard of integrity we can respect? The Coleman debacle seems to represent everything people might loathe about a “slimy” politician. Jim Cramer was at least repentant, while dancing on his string.

I really don't know why you dipshits get all excited when Stewart/Colbert supposedly "skewer" some republican or wall street douchebag. Did it ever occur to you that if the two of them were really opposed to the crap that goes on in this country they WOULDN'T HAVE ASSHOLES LIKE JIM CRAMER OR BILL KRISTOL on their show in the first place??

I've seen so many right wing asshats on those guys shows that sometimes i think they only exist to further define the parameters of the national debate. Like, why does Stewart offer these people any respect whatsoever? Bill Kristol is a murdering propagandist...he's not someone that just happens to hold different political beliefs from you or me...he's a MURDERING PROPAGANDIST. If stewie and colbie were really offering any resistance to the powers that be they'd be taken off the air...not be supplied with a steady stream of right wing pundits.

To me this segment does nothing but act as a calming agent for a citizenry that should be in the streets demanding a full accounting of all that has gone on with the bailout, the bush war crimes, all of it. I guess we're supposed to be satisfied with Jim Cramer being "called out" by Jon Stewart. Gee, pooor Jim Cramer, he might be out of a TV job...hopefully one of the billionaires that he provided cover for will help him out along the way...as if he's not rich already. There should be lynchings and we get this bullshit...wake up people.

And as for Stewart saying he admits he's a snake oil salesman...BULLSHIT. Have an anti-israeli guest on sometime that calls out Israel for it's genocidal actions sometime if you want to pretend you don't patronize your audience pal...same for you BRAD.

Actually, on second thought, Brad you do provide a forum for people that disagree with you in your comments section, so props for that.

Gos said:

Did it ever occur to you that if the two of them were really opposed to the crap that goes on in this country they WOULDN'T HAVE ASSHOLES LIKE JIM CRAMER OR BILL KRISTOL on their show in the first place??

But that would be stupid. Ignoring those guys --- as long as nobody else does --- gets us nowhere. Much better to have them on, taken them on, call them out. Same reason why I'd go on the air any day (and have) with liars and propagandists like Ann Coulter, John Fund, etc. Though readers had initially felt I shouldn't, I believe the results proved that it was a good idea to do so. Same is true for Stewart bringing these guys on, and opening a can of whoop-ass/reality on them.

As to your reference to "you dipshits", I hope you're either talking about me, or the world in general, because while you can call me anything you wish, personal attacks on other commenters is one of the very few things forbidden in the very few rules we have for commenting here at BRAD BLOG. So please don't do that again, if that's what you were doing.

Actually, on second thought, Brad you do provide a forum for people that disagree with you in your comments section, so props for that.

Thanks for noticing.

Dear GOS,
Interesting conversational style you have. Remind me not to ask you to pass the ketchup.
The reason this dipshit got so excited by the Stewart/Cramer episode is I've never seen someone who represents power and the status quo so artfully, intelligently, relentlessly confronted with the truth like that.
Your anger seems gratuitous and random and feels like your trying to blow out birthday candles with a firehose.
Stewart's anger was focused, precise, called Cramer to the mat but did not dehumanize him. Stewart took Cramer's rationalizations and excuses and turned them back on him time and again. That was conversational art of an extraordinarily high quality. You don't see brilliance like that much. Especially on TV. So yeah, I'm celebrating.
David Lasagna

Great piece Brad. I agree with David about his critique of the interview. That was brilliant using the repeated clips of Cramer's self-indictment.

Bravo! Now if only the authorities would take notice...

My main point here is that segments like this provide what I believe to be a fake sense of justice to the viewer. It conveys the idea that the system is working at least to some degree, after all, we get to see shady thieves like Jim Cramer get their comeuppance at the hands of the charming, yet filled with righteous anger, Jon Stewart.

And I challenge you all to watch the videotape very closely and just pay attention to Stewart only. He's acting. There's one part where you can actually see him laugh to himself a little bit after he supposedly tears into Cramer. He knows damn well that he puts on the guests the network tells him too, thus limiting the discourse. Again, there were many, many allegations of outright genocidal behavior by the Israeli army recently (and yes,towards the U.S. Army at times during the Iraqi/Afghani conflicts). That viewpoint is clearly fairly widespread in many parts of the world and the intrawebz yet it will never see the light of day on american tv because WHOMEVER won't allow it. So when Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart purport to give you the "real deal" about what's going on just remind yourself that they will never address certain topics on their shows, JUST LIKE THE MSM CRAP LIKE CROSSFIRE, just with the bar pushed a little further out on the edge of left-wing opinion.

Even if someone is only lying to you a little bit, they're still lying to you. Or in this case managing your perception.

The way I took that laugh from Stewart Gos is that he's laughing because everyone else knows exactly the same thing that Jon is talking about and why does it have to be a comedy show to bring this shit out into the open?

Jon is laughing at the ridiculousness of the whole situation IMO and so was I.

Dear GOS,
I am suffering no illusions concerning the dysfunction of our system. And I do not think Jon Stewart gets everything right all the time(just a helluva lot of the time). And I agree that there are certain topics which are verboten with Israel's behavior probably at the top of the list. But I repeat--instances of truth being spoken to power are rare here. Stephen Colbert at the White House Correspondents' Dinner. Brad Friedman going at it with John Fund over election integrity issues. Howard Zinn debating William F. Buckley. This Stewart/Cramer show was one of those rare times. And it was on national TV for goodness sakes! For me it's important to acknowledge the events that you wish happened with much greater frequency.
And I think you have it completely wrong on Stewart "acting". I think he was never acting less. That's why he made that comment at the very end about it being so uncomfortable. I think he was driven to confront Cramer by a sense of righteous purpose much as he was when he confronted the hosts of Crossfire.
David Lasagna

Obviously, Stewart has long had a gripe about the "news" coverage in the United States, as have we all. I think he felt compelled to follow through on it, and whether it was planned by one side or the other to throw him this [dangerous] clown, it served beautifully to expose to all those in the bastions of nitwittery just how bad this stuff is for us. So he should be respected for that.

I don't think many of us noticed how well Cramer handled himself, though. And I don't think many people noticed how like some fighter pilots Cramer and the rest of them are. They're regular guys who don't realize on the level where it needs to be realized the death and destruction their games are causing. That is what drives me the craziest about the perfidious fucks running our world. They don't genuinely realize what evil they are doing.

It's all head trips.

And Stewart didn't make a scratch in that. I can totally hang with the anger and frustration expressed by Gos, even though I disagree with him about Stewart and Colbert. Actually, Stephen Colbert's appearance at the 2006 Correspondents' Dinner should go down in history as one of the bravest acts ever by an American entertainer. He tore * limb from limb right to his face, not five feet from him. He was merciless, where mercy was truly not deserved.

I think we all would vastly prefer decent people didn't get mixed up with war criminals, and Street con-artists, and harmful media maniacs, that these people would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and lose their jobs in the public eye, but since that so isn't happening, we have to settle for these tiny victories.

Not only is the "he was acting" description way off base, in my opinion, but if you look at the unedited version of the interview over at TheDailyShow.com (end of part 3), you'll see an unaired hint as to one of the reasons why the entire affair seems to have pissed Stewart off so righteously. He mentions, at the very end of the interview, that his own 75 year-old mother seems to have socked a lot of money away in the stock market, thinking it was a safe investment. Can tell for sure, but Stewart seems to indicate that much of her life savings may have gotten whacked.

Good thing, at least Jon's still got a good job. But yeah, I'd be pissed too. If that was acting, let's have more acting on basic cable please. Thanks.

Fallout update: The fella behind those stunning internet clips of Cramer discussing his role in manipulating hedge funds - has resigned.

http://tinyurl.com/cazkrj

"Thomas Clarke, who has been CEO of financial news website The Street has announced his departure “effective immediately.”

"Clarke’s abrupt departure comes less than a day after The Daily Show aired tape of The Street’s co-founder, Jim Cramer, explaining in a Street.com webcast how he, as a hedge fund manager, manipulated value to serve some publicly traded companies and investors at the expense of others..."

I thank God everyday for Jon Stewart, Steven Colbert, and indoor plumbing.

Before i was so rudely interrupted I was trying to make the following points:

https://bradblog.com/?p=6984#comment-386574

in #3 above.

Regarding the Coleman/Franken debacle mentioned at the end I would also ask, this election a classic, worthy of being a poster child of how transparency should be a dominant concern, of what might constitue inappropriate candidate behavior.

I would welcome any responses and we can take our discussion of line.

Geo Rip

[ed note: Please just link or refer to the comment number rather than repeating the whole comment. Thank you. --99]

We specialize in rude interruptions, Geo. And, I have found that people will address points and questions in comments if they are interested in them or have the time they want to spend on them.

Aggravating, I know....

I just want to know when Rick Santelli is going to have the balls to show up for his interview with Jon.

I saw the full unedited version a few days ago (was on vacation for the real thing), and it was simply brilliant. The crossfire interview, the correspondents dinner, and now this are three of the most memorable media moments of the past 10 years for speaking the truth to power.

I was wondering where those clips of Cramer came from (he clearly wasn't expecting THAT), and thanks for posting the info Jeannie (#14). Sorry to hear someone got canned for it, although I wonder if he resigned because someone ELSE released them to Stewart or whether he himself released them to Stewart. I didn't realize Cramer was co-founder of 'the street' either.

I think GOS's view is mistaken. This type of thing isn't to pacify the masses. This type of thing is an EXAMPLE of what we SHOULD strive for in our media. Truth. Truth to power. Call out the BS and reveal the truth.