Barron's vs. Cramer (Yet Another Round)

The old saw about battles in academia being so vicious because so little is at stake is equally applicable to media squabbles. That, of course, in no way mitigates their entertainment value, so let’s get to the Columbia Journalism Review and Dean Starkman’s analysis of an imbroglio, triggered by Barron’s ‘Shorting Cramer’ cover story from Aug. 20 2007:

While the story didn’t make much of a splash at the time, it sparked a quiet but surprisingly fierce feud between the two business-news organizations, one that seems out of proportion to the story that caused it. Within days of publication, for instance, CNBC officials told Barron’s reporters who had appeared as on-air guests for years that their presence was no longer desired...

...The clash shows what happens when one business-news outlet goes after another: bad blood. In a recent interview with me, a visibly distraught Cramer displayed an emotional intensity entirely different from his ranting but comical on-air persona. “It was just so outrageous, so Kafkaesque,” he says of being a Barron’s target.

At least as outrageous and Kafkaesque: Cramer being any kind of distraught at being a Barron’s target. CJR omits mention of the longstanding, if recently low-key, enmity between Mr Booyah and Barron’s, the latter mostly in the form of its former editor and now columnist Alan Abelson; they’ve been tossing grenades at each other for at least the 7000 Dow points (counting the 2000 currently overhead).

Not to mention the fact that after how many years of polluting perfectly good bandwidth with Mad Money, CNBC “acknowledges” that airing a show centered on stock picking “without tracking its own performance or even keeping a record, using whatever criteria it chooses, of the stocks it picks” is a problem that it’s...“working on.”

Mad Money, Bad Blood
Why CNBC threw Barron’s off its air
by Dean Starkman
Columbia Journalism Review Feb. 15 2008

Disclosure: Your author has been a (very) occasional contributor to Barron’s; he told CNBC where to stick its invitations several months ago.

Comments

[valueinvestor123]

Neither Cramer or Barron's have great track records when it comes to picks. The one thing they do have in common is they could care less about how the picks perform. Barron's only cares about the number of papers it sells and Cramer (whose only investments according to him is a charitable trust) only cares about ratings and books he sells. If ratings and book sales are high he doesn't care if his next pick is similar to NYX and SHLD or POT and CLF.

[rmgreenwald]

Cramer is an entertainer with market experience and a good resume: albeit one that can also provide some level of education on the market in general. He's often funny, sometimes over the top, and sometimes too eager to pass off his whiffs with a weak 'mea culpa'. He does occasionally gets things right.

No one should make financial decisions based purely upon what Cramer says, anymore than they should make them on the basis of what ANY talking head says on CNBC, or in Barrons, etc. These media 'experts' should stimulate trading/investing ideas that individuals must further research and understand before deciding to take any positions, short or long.

[droskoph]

Everyone gravitates to entertaining news and pretends they can tell the difference.

[ballsschweaty]

Great traders are busy minting money and don't have time to write newspaper columns or jump up and down like a monkey on TV.

Listening to these snake oil salesman is a complete waste of time.

[NormanLepoff, M.D.]

I am glad I am not the only one who knows Cramer for what he is. I just feel bad for the fools that listen to Cramer. Barron's was right!!!