« The Soundtrack Of Our Lives | Main | "Something is deeply wrong with this outcome" »

March 18, 2009

Stop Children, what's that sound

Everybody look what's goin' down. - Buffalo Springfield

(Previously posted at Blue Oregon.)

By now I'm sure that most of us have heard about Jon Stewart's evisceration of CNBC's Mad Money host James Cramer. But I'm guessing that fewer have heard about Cramer's Oregon connection. Turns out that James Cramer and our own Steve Novick are both members of the Harvard Law School class of '84. Fellow member of the HLS class of '84 Daniel Spiro was a staunch Novick supporter during Steve's recent run for U.S. Senate and needs no introduction to regular readers of Blue Oregon. Spiro wrote a post on Saturday about how the last year has been a Tough Year for the class of '84 on his Empathic Rationalist blog:

I look at a guy like Cramer and I’m reminded of that old ad campaign where the consumers are told that they could “have it all” – three piece suits AND rock ‘n roll. Cramer must have thought he had it all. Unlike his buddy Spitzer, who had to wage wars against Wall Street and, later, Albany Republicans, Cramer could be a friend to everyone … and get rich in the process. At the same time that he was rolling in the dough, he was comporting himself on the airwaves like a party-animal, even backslapping on such mainstream programs as Morning Joe.

Then came Stewart. His rebuke was quite simple -- it’s one thing to be a wild-and-crazy celebrity and make money for it; it’s another thing to be a charlatan who recklessly deprives people of their savings. As Stewart demonstrated, Cramer and his network told middle class people that they could TRUST his recommendations on what to do with their nest eggs, when in fact he didn’t have a friggen clue what he was talking about. Worse yet, Stewart pointed out, Cramer once publicly joked about playing the kind of games with the financial system that could have actually gotten him and his cronies in trouble if the regulators weren’t such idiots.

Actually, what Cramer was joking about may in fact constitute illegal market manipulation. But the larger story here is how or why a comedian openly playing the role of of a faux-news anchor came to be the instrument of Cramer's comeuppance. Carla and I were discussing this very issue the other day when she asked the obvious: Why wasn't it 60 Minutes or another of the investigative news programs that exposed Cramer?

One answer may be as simple as Jon Stewart having not followed the presumed script. The British Telegraph briefly describes how everyone at CNBC must have assumed it would go.

After dipping his proboscis into Stewart's pollen, Cramer was meant to flutter home with some of his young viewers, curious to see what the fuss was about.

Undoubtedly that's exactly how the big shots at CNBC (and elsewhere) thought it would play out. But Denver Post columnist Mike Littwin hints at another factor and the implications are disturbing to say the least.

But, somehow, it's Stewart's lack of credentials that has become the point — showing that a fake journalist will go where it seems real journalists fear to tread.

It's actually more complicated than that. Stewart is a smart guy who thinks well on his feet and knows how to conduct a tough interview. You may remember his famous takedown of "Crossfire" for its sins against journalism. But no one would even have noticed if, say, The New York Times took on CNBC and Cramer and his flying bulls and bears and the stock market frenzy he did his best to perpetuate.

While the fact that it was a TV comedian who valiently scored a blow against the cynical and arrogant Wall Street charlatans on behalf of us victimized consumers is indeed an indictment of the mainstream "news" business, isn't it also an indictment of us poor schmucks too. Without us would anyone know or care that Stewart so thoroughly eviscerated Cramer? For that matter, would Stewart ever have had the opportunity in the first place?

Littwin continues,

It's easy to make fun of Cramer. Like Stewart, Cramer wants you to take him seriously while not taking him seriously at all. That's what we call shtick, and it's hardly new. What is new is that you can do this on TV on what is also a serious financial-news network — and that people watch breathlessly, with cellphone in hand, as Cramer advises where to invest their money.

If Stewart, who trades in outrage, is outraged by this, suddenly, that's a story. If Stewart shows CNBC for what it too often is — a shill for Wall Street — that's a story.

If he tells Cramer this is no bleepin' game, yeah, millions line up to watch (and, if you missed it, you can see the entire unexpurgated interview at comedycentral.com).

This works because they're in the same business — the business, as Stewart puts it, of selling snake oil. But Stewart's brand of snake oil didn't help make your 401(k) shrink before your eyes.

Posted by Kevin at March 18, 2009 01:19 PM