Jim Cramer and the Devolution The Daily Show

Did anyone see Jim Cramer on The Daily Show? Poor guy caved and capitulated. Stewart kinda ambushed him, and went after him without anything even resembling a coherent point.

This has been happening with The Daily Show for a long time, but it's getting downright absurd. Jon Stewart has no idea what he's talking about when he starts asking confused questions about finance. No. Freakin'. Idea. But that doesn't stop him from asking pointed, populist-themed questions that get little rounds of applause from the studio audience.

What's worse, the show keeps hiding behind the fact that it's technically comedy. But anyone who watches it at all knows that there's a lot of winking, and a lot of cheers going along with the laughs. There's a not-so-subtle implication that "yeah, this is comedy...but we're also getting at some larger truths." Of course, there's still plenty of deniability when someone calls them out. Not that most people do, because anyone lampooned by the show wants to avoid looking like they don't have a sense of humor.

Real shame. Used to be a great show, but Stewart needs to be taken down a peg. His interviews have become more like interventions, which might be okay if he actually understood the issues. He thinks the problem is shady back-room dealings, but the real problem (or one of them, at least) is people like himself talking about finance and economics, despite knowing next-to-nothing about it.

Anyway, that's my rant. Been bugging me for awhile, so I felt it had to be said.

I stopped watching when Craig Kilborn left. It's my opinion that it was a lot better then than it is now.

__________________
"I was walking down the street with my friend and he said, "I hear music", as if there is any other way you can take it in. You're not special, that's how I receive it too. I tried to taste it but it did not work." - Mitch Hedberg

Still a great show. And Stewart actually acted like a journalist -- something broadcast journalists don't do anymore.

Sorry you think that's bad. I happen to think Cramer wasn't ambused at all. He was asked questions that needed to be asked.

It's pretty fascinating to me that people of a particular political stance don't seem to like questions asked by someone they disagree with on political matters. Yet... every question asked by Stewart are questions I want answered. CNBC was a cheerleader for Wall Street. They deserved to be called out and Cramer even agreed to do a better job.

We don't have a fourth estate in this country anymore and it's left to a comedy guy to actually ask the tough questions. That is NOT an ambush. it should be happening EVERY DAY in the media. Sadly, it isn't.

And about the show itself -- Stewart shows the ineptness of the media and the hypocrisy of the politicians by simply editing together what he sees and hears. It is brilliant. And nobody else does it. If I wanted to show my students how stupid the media is, all I have to do is show 5 minutes of The Daily Show (course I don't.. too many bad words, lol). Nevertheless, Jon Stewart is doing the american people a service. Thank god he is around.

I agree with you entirely, Yoda. It's become increasingly more obvious how bias The Daily Show is, and what an ego Stewart has developed over the duration of the show. It's unbelievable. I never took it seriously to begin with, but Stewart is sounding more and more like the very person he dislikes: Bill O'Reilly.

We actually watch the Daily Show in my AP Government and Politics class and i forced them to watch Colbert too because i wanted a mixture instead of hearing it all from the same guy. And our textbook is so ridiculously biased, it was written by only one person and i can't even believe how blatant it is that the author has an agenda and it makes me sooo mad but i read it anyway >.< That whole class has a slanted undertone to it, even though it's a really fun class it just gets frustrating sometimes. Also a lot of teachers at my school are making their kids watch An Inconvenient Truth which bothers me too. The teachers at my school are really bad about hiding their political persuasion and they don't care at all about it which irks me really bad sometimes. I hate it when people in positions of power use it to manipulate others who are mostly ignorant of the subject into their viewpoints. No matter who's doing it or which 'side' you're on it's just so not okay especially in an educational setting. Wow i digressed a lot sorry but yeah i think that one such as Jon Stewart can feel high and mighty by having an audience clap after eeeverything that he says which just makes it worse. It's like when you insult someone and your friend goes "oooooooooo" and it makes the insult cut that much deeper. I thought it did seem a bit like an ambush because there would have been a completely different tone if everybody in the room didn't worship what Jon Stewart was saying. I would have rather seen a serious one on one conversation.

And another thing, i have seen wayyy more episodes of the Daily Show than i have of the Colbert Report (thanks apgov...) but the episodes that i have seen of the Colbert Report i thought were way more appropriate for comedy, he interviews serious people but also asks them ridiculous questions for the sole purpose of comedy and i think that's what Jon Stewart needs to do more of, stick to the comedy instead of political statements. Colbert keeps all of his interviews lighthearted and funny and that's what the point of the show is but meh, i didn't even get to see that entire interview with Jim Cramer but i saw about thirty seconds of it and it bothered me the way it was conducted.

Except that journalists are usually required to have a modicum of insight or at least a cursory understanding of the topic they're grilling people on. Stewart has neither. To someone who knows even a little about economics, some of the things he's said are mind-boggling. His interview with John Sununu was an embarassment.

He was ambushed because Stewart prepared a barrage of random clips (some horribly out of context) which he interspersed throughout the interview. You can make anyone on TV look bad that way. It wasn't an interview, so much as an intervention. Saying it's necessary is at least arguable, but saying it's journalism? Or professional? No way.

Is it equally as fascinating that people who DO have the same political stance feel obliged to defend him?

Cramer caved. Everyone caves on that show. It's part of why The Daily Show has managed to build up the silly notion that it contains actual insight. It looks bad to hit back; nobody wants to get into a fight with a comedy show and look humorless, even if that show is constantly nodding and winking and implying that it delivers more than just laughs.

People talking about subjects they don't understand is a big, big problem, particularly as the country grapples with complicated issues of economics and finance. In that respect, Stewart is part of the problem. He's drumming up misguided anger completely unaccompanied by genuine education on the subjects he's railing about. That's bad no matter what you believe.

This is a perfect description. It's like one of those zingers that doesn't make sense, but sounds good, so everyone around makes an "oooo" noise. I'm stunned by how often that happens. A comedian asks a pointed question that he wouldn't ask if he understood the topic, and then other people watching who don't understand the topic clap and laugh. It's like one big celebration of ignorance. It's like a highly elevated playground confrontation.

I just want to know if there's something wrong with watching An Inconvenient Truth, especially in an AP class. (I already know it's done all the time.) It seems to me that it would be a perfect springboard to launch into a discussion/debate about the subject matter. Just because it's slanted one direction doesn't mean that the class can't debate it. In fact, if I used the film as a lesson, I'd make the assignment to be: Do personal research and find five flaws, inconsistencies or misstatements which contradict the film. How do these five things affect your belief in what the film's theme is? What, if anything, do you do to help the ecology of the planet? How does it relate to the film's theme? What do you believe to be the greatest effect that humans have on the environment? What, if anything, should we do about it?

The only time I watch "The Daily Show" is when my daughter has it on, and that's only when I walk into and out of the kitchen.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

Saw this article today, and remembered this thread:

http://carm.org/matt-slick-daily-show

Shorter version: they wanted to find Christians to say crazy things, the guy wouldn't, so they doubled the length of the interview, asked lots of leading questions, and when he still would't oblige they edited it to make it look like he said the opposite of what he actually said.

It's stunning to me how many otherwise intelligent people harbor the belief that Stewart and Colbert are actually quasi-reliable sources of information, or cut-through-the-bull media watchdogs.

But that's why it works: avoid serious journalistic scrutiny because "we're a comedy program!" while everything about that program winks and nods and implies that it's dropping some actual truth on you through its satire.

While I'm all for ridiculing any and all religions, it's scary that political satire/comedy programmes are being viewed as "the news" or the truth.

Regardless of how many times he was assured that he wouldn't be mocked or ridiculed and that their intent wasn't to make him (or by extension Christianity?) look bad, he should've been fully aware of the programme and its nature. Without wanting to go all "The Scorpian and The Frog" on everyone, that's what they do. Christians, it would appear, are not wanted as friends of The Daily Show. At least, not those of organised Christianity. If I was from an organisation that was/is mocked on programmes like this, I wouldn't believe them for a second when they said it was a straight interview. That's not to say he shouldn't have gone on there, but he should've known why they wanted him and have had a good idea of their intention.

However, despite all that, there's no excuse for this kind of misrepresentation. Moreso if, as appears here, you didn't get the stupid/nutty answers/footage you wanted. Now, had they had a representation of him and put words in his mouth, (voiceover footage of him saying he loves gays and wishes he was one or was a Satanist or something like that) I'd be fine with that. That's obviously not true and he's had no imput. You're simply making an obvious joke at someone's expense and, despite how it feels sometimes, it's not illegal to offend someone or be offended. But, if what he says is true, then The Daily Show should admit what they did and apologise.

__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.