Cramer: Jon Stewart Interview Was a 'Complete and Utter Ambush' 28 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
CNBC’s Jim Cramer tells the Ohio State Lantern his interview on the Daily Show last month “was a complete and utter ambush” and that the popular comedian Jon Stewart pulled a fast one on him and did not “comport himself as a gentleman.” From The Lantern:
He told my staff that it was going to be fun, convivial, no clips, but [it] doesn’t matter, he’s a comedian, he can do whatever he wants.
Was it a fair fight? No, it wasn’t even a fight. I came on with the idea of taking a high road approach and discussing the issues, obviously [Stewart] came on strictly to try to humiliate me. It was brutal. Was he stand-up? Absolutely not.
Did he comport himself as a gentleman? Hardly. It was a deposition; he wants to be a prosecutor.
His goal was just to humiliate and destroy me and probably get me fired, and last I looked, I still have a show.
It was a 20 minute interview, he picked the worst eight minutes to make me look as horrible as possible. It’s his show, he can do whatever he wants. If he comes on my show, it’ll be a fair discussion, but he’s not gonna come on my show, because he’s all about his [ratings] numbers.
Cramer was also critical of Stewart’s conduct off-camera:
“He had an animus toward me. At the conclusion of the interview, not on the mic,” he said, “I picked the wrong guy, I’m sorry, but that’s not gonna get out there,” Cramer said. “He just said it to me as just a throwaway. His goal was just to humiliate and destroy me and probably get me fired, and last I looked, I still have a show”.
Cramer said although the interview was “allegedly disastrous” for his own career, “my [ratings] have never been better.”
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
David Fry
-
2
TraderMark
-
3
Don Dion
-
4
Cliff Wachtel
-
5
Mike Havrilla
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 28 comments:
On Apr 14 08:51 AM johmw wrote:
> While I did not see the whole interview it does surprise me that
> anyone takes Cramer seriously. The guy says he makes "investing fun".
> I think it could be more adequately described as idiotic. I never
> take any of his ideas seriously and no one that I know that invests
> does either.
On Apr 14 09:16 AM DEA wrote:
> I do and I make money, by the way I clicked the wrong thumb and could
> not change it. it was sposed to be thumbs down.
On Apr 14 08:51 AM johmw wrote:
> While I did not see the whole interview it does surprise me that
> anyone takes Cramer seriously. The guy says he makes "investing fun".
> I think it could be more adequately described as idiotic. I never
> take any of his ideas seriously and no one that I know that invests
> does either.
Cramer is a front runner-buys stocks then pushes them after the run up. Some make money but most get burned. Suggest not to follow his picks-but listen to advice and try to gain knowledge of markets.
NO I don't watch anymore.
For the ones that follow Cramers advice and throw $$$ into it... theres a saying... "The law doesnt protect the stupid"
Neither one cares about anyone or anything else, outside of their personal lives, as long as the ratings of their own show goes up.
The surprising thing to me is why that is surprising to either one of them or anyone else.
Morality and principles, NO.
Ratings and profits, YES.
Stewart's essential point was that the financial media helped inflate the bubble and failed to pay adequate (any?) attention to the excesses that underpinned real estate and derivatives. Cramer was just the figure head that Stewart used to skewer the media. That he was somewhat unfair toward Cramer is true, but again Cramer was just the biggest. loudest voice on CNBC. He just as easily could have lambasted the Money Honey for making her CEO interviews into love fests, or Kudlow for never seeing a tax cut he did't love or most of the CNBC hosts for sounding like shills for the GOP. Cramer is a big boy and understands better than most how the financial media, with few exceptions, is a form of entertainment. Unfortunately, most of the audience fails to appreciate how much it costs them to be part of that audience.
And why does everyone insist on being 100% positive or negative? The answer most often seems to be somewhere in between the two.
Having said that, I have no sympathy for Jim Cramer. Of all the guests who naively have gone on Stewarts' show only to get mocked, Cramer is probably one of the most deserving to have his record examined. Cramer acts like a confidant expert, makes unequivocal recommendations, then when he is totally wrong, his disclaimer is : " I apologize, I was wrong , I hurt people, and I feel badly".
Well,Jim maybe if you are sincere, you would be much more cautious in your recommendations, and stop the love fests with the "friend, buddy pal" CEO people you bring on the show and fawn over, until they finally disappoint and lose money for your clients.
And of course, not to mention the bogus disclaimer, that while you are an expert, and really check out companies before you take a position, the simple viewer must do scads of research before deciding to invest in a company that you are screaming for them to buy. Come on.
So in summary, I would say the Cramer deserved the Stewart treatment, but the Stewart show deserves labelling as a pro-liberal propaganda machine, not a funny show. Jon Stewart, you are a smart mouth, not a funny man. The tough part to take is that you are actually paid for it.
You have got it all wrong. Cramer has simply lost more money for young people.
On Apr 14 01:05 PM veryold wrote:
> Cramer has interested more people, especially young people, in the
> stock market than anyone else. He educates, and he insists on investors
> doing their own homework. He's written some good books. He's a little
> too frenetic for a steady diet for someone my age, but I don't see
> the purpose of all the potshots aimed at him. Just envious of his
> success, I guess.
But I think Cramer is way too "shocked, shocked!" Surely he should have known he was going to be in for it when Stewart was ripping Rick Santelli for blowing him off.
Yeah, Jim, you might have walked into an ambush. But you went fetal almost as soon as Stewart came out of his corner. Where was the Jim Cramer from Squawk Box in January 2008 ranting about "the level of fiction in financials after Sarbanes-Oxley?" Where was the Jim Cramer from Closing Bell last summer who said he was concerned the individual investor was going to conclude the market is rigged for the benefit of the ultrarich?
Ambush? Maybe. But you did f' all to defend yourself.
Cramer and Stewart are both entertainers. They both have an agenda.
I woke up to the fact after Stewarts cross fire interview. He tried to do it again about the economy. But, it was a hatchet job.
Stewart doesn't really care.
I saw much of the interview and agree that it was a digital lynching. Hopefully, however, Jim gained viewers who otherwise would never have tried watching his program. Stewart is a comedian and can be very funny. While I don't share his viewpoint, he is often hilarious.
On Apr 14 10:43 AM User 285534 wrote:
> Anyone that watches Cramer needs to get a life!
<A HREF="unclej0.blogspot.com">hogs</A>