John Stewart destroys CNBC and Cramer.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by Stumptown

I blame the internet for this development. The networks see themselves as competing against bloggers now, instead of competing against each other as professional journalists. Of course, everyone on the internet is an expert in their own mind, reacting to events (because they only have second-hand information, it's necessarily reactive), and the talking heads on TV have fallen into that same mindset.

And now that the major news (*cough* CNN) networks are relying more on completely untrained, random "experts" to "report" the "news" via YouTube and Twitter - they've almost completely removed real journalism from their programming.

If the news networks are actually serious about competing in this new environment, they need to get back to providing a service that the internet can't, instead of integrating the weakest aspects of internet-based "reporting" into their own programming. And bless Jon Stewart (and many others) for calling them out on their lazy practices.

CNN and the other news networks were doing this type of lazy journalism long before the internet became something to care about. The internet is not and never has changed anything despite what the "blogosphere" thinks.

Journalists are now using the internet and social media (poorly I might add) to further their opinionated bullcocky to the masses who eagerly eat it up because it's easier to agree with a formed opinion then it is to actually critically think about it.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by Daradon

There's always the BBC, often held as the standard around the world.

But I agree with you and others, as far as news and journalism goes CBC is one of the best and way better than anything on US TV.

Interesting how the two examples of decent journalism brought up in this thread are both reliant on public funding and less on advertising revenue.

Not saying this is the cause, but I do think the coupling of journalism with advertising revenue is a big motivator behind the current state of things.

Guess it depends what you want: government mouth piece or corporate shills.

[liamenator]

Originally Posted by fotze

Just like calgARI's favorite word, unacceptable, if you search it you can find every single Flames loss this season.

Or fotze's, hands-down.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Daradon

There's always the BBC, often held as the standard around the world.

But I agree with you and others, as far as news and journalism goes CBC is one of the best and way better than anything on US TV.

Yeah, I forgot about BBC.

PBS is another publicly funded organization that has some pretty decent stuff.

I think I hate myself for saying that.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by llama64

Interesting how the two examples of decent journalism brought up in this thread are both reliant on public funding and less on advertising revenue.

Not saying this is the cause, but I do think the coupling of journalism with advertising revenue is a big motivator behind the current state of things.

Guess it depends what you want: government mouth piece or corporate shills.

Yeah never thought about it that way, but you're right. Making them dependent on advertising dollars almost makes them less independent than if they relied on tax payers dollars.

As far as being a government mouth piece or a corporate shill you could always be Fox News and be both... (provided its a Repub government of course)

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by ricoFlame

I don't like cramer at all, but i am shocked at how composed he was during that. Isn't ambushing someone with a bunch of stuff like that with no chance to prepare poor journalism? kinda came off that way.

Do people actually take financial advice from people who scream on the TV?

Yes you'd be surprised. Some hack on BNN says a stock is good and that stock will immediately go up 5%.

People buy on rumors and sell on news.

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Yes you'd be surprised. Some hack on BNN says a stock is good and that stock will immediately go up 5%.

People buy on rumors and sell on news.

I used to work at TD Waterhouse and you would be surprised at how many coworkers and supervisors followed Cramer there. Well this was back in 2000 and 2001 when everything tech was crumbling.

Do people actually watch BNN? The graphics and the presentation look so horrible i have to turn the channel after a minute.

I just watched the Cramer interview with Stewart. Ugh. that was pretty uncomfortable to watch. I'm surprised CNBC let him on the show. I wonder how much money Stewart lost last year in the market. haha.

[JimmytheT]

Originally Posted by Azure

LOL.....okay then.

Outside of Fox, I don't think you can refer to all of the above as 'extreme' right wing. But, each to his own.

CBC has probably the best international news coverage that I know of. But, the rest of their programming, outside of HNIC is junk.

I'm going to disagree with this point. I find that the BBC has the best international news reporting by far.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by JimmytheT

I'm going to disagree with this point. I find that the BBC has the best international news reporting by far.

Yeah, can't really argue there.

They're both very good.

[Clarkey]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

It's very different. Stewart's show never attempts to be authoritative about politics. It's slanted, everyone knows it--and it's designed to be funny. It can sometimes be trenchant, often critical, but at the end of the day, the measure of Stewart's show is still "was it funny?"

Cramer isn't operating in that universe--and he knows it, as evidenced by his awkward mea culpas in that interview. I actually did gain respect for him--he knew Stewart had him dead to rights, and he sat there and took his lumps and never stopped smiling.

But it is shocking that the news media has failed so badly that the first person to try to "explain" the financial crisis to the layperson is Jon Stewart. He's become a much more important media figure than I think he's comfortable with, and it's because the news media in this country has failed in their duty to the public. What's unfair is blaming all of that on Cramer--it's a much bigger problem.

I would argue the most of the general public don't realize that Cramer and Stewart are entertainers. There are people that base their political opinions on what Stewart says and people that base their financial decisions on Cramer's comments.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Clarkey

I would argue the most of the general public don't realize that Cramer and Stewart are entertainers. There are people that base their political opinions on what Stewart says and people that base their financial decisions on Cramer's comments.

Jon Stewart is a comedian with a comedy news show on a comedy channel. Cramer is giving real financial advise to people watching a real financial network. why can't people see this difference?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

Jon Stewart is a comedian with a comedy news show on a comedy channel. Cramer is giving real financial advise to people watching a real financial network. why can't people see this difference?

You don't think that network sponsors aren't influencing what stocks he is telling people to invest in?

[Clarkey]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

Jon Stewart is a comedian with a comedy news show on a comedy channel. Cramer is giving real financial advise to people watching a real financial network. why can't people see this difference?

Because most people are morons (perhaps including me?).

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

Jon Stewart is a comedian with a comedy news show on a comedy channel. Cramer is giving real financial advise to people watching a real financial network. why can't people see this difference?

A comedian who still influences political opinion.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Clarkey

I would argue the most of the general public don't realize that Cramer and Stewart are entertainers.

You'd have to be pretty goddamn dumb to not realize that Stewart is an entertainer. He's on "The Comedy Network" for crying out loud. He swears on the show. He has a live studio-audience laughing at his jokes.

And entertainer or not, Cramer is giving advice he (and the network he works for) consider and promote as legitimate. They aren't trying to get laughs.

In vaguely related news, Rush Limbaugh apparently bristled at being labeled an "entertainer" by some Republican bigwig last week.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Azure

A comedian who still influences political opinion.

only because the real media in the US has gotten so bad that Stewart looks like a genius in comparison. The Daily Show has had the same MO ever since Stewart took over, but now the media is such a joke that people are turning to his comedy show for real insight because they can't get it anywhere else. that's not his fault, he has said time and time again that he has no wish to be an influential voice in America, he only wants to entertain. but now it seems he's being forced to take a more serious tone like this Cramer interview because his audience is clamoring for someone to step up, and no one else will

[macker]

Apparently Stewarts brother is a big shot Wall Street executive. Larry Leibowitz, the head of US Markets and Global Trading @ NYSE Euronext.
The 48-year-old Leibowitz is something of a Wall Street journeyman. He joined the NYSE from UBS, where he served as chief operating officer of the equity business in the U.S. Prior to that he co-ran Schwab’s capital markets business. Before that, Leibowitz co-founded a quantitative hedge fund called Bunker Capital, served as CEO of REDIbook and headed up quant trading at CSFB.
The older brother is said to be a pretty unassuming, often quiet kind of guy who dislikes being mentioned as Jon Stewart's older brother.

[macker]

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

I used to work at TD Waterhouse and you would be surprised at how many coworkers and supervisors followed Cramer there. Well this was back in 2000 and 2001 when everything tech was crumbling.

Do people actually watch BNN? The graphics and the presentation look so horrible i have to turn the channel after a minute.

I just watched the Cramer interview with Stewart. Ugh. that was pretty uncomfortable to watch. I'm surprised CNBC let him on the show. I wonder how much money Stewart lost last year in the market. haha.

__________________________________________________ _____________

Daily
It is a very Canadian channel to say the least! I do however like the way they get top CEO's on and get just the facts and there is basically no fluff. The closest thing they have to Mad Money is Market Call and they almost over disclose things and they make it uncomfortable for the guests at times with how serious they are. If you pick your spots it is a very informative channel and they are basically the only ones covering the Canadian market so what other choice do you have. For International market info skip CNBC and get it from Bloomberg if you want just the facts. BNN is like the Canadian banks....safe, boring and reliable....

[pepper24]

Originally Posted by macker

Apparently Stewarts brother is a big shot Wall Street executive. Larry Leibowitz, the head of US Markets and Global Trading @ NYSE Euronext.
The 48-year-old Leibowitz is something of a Wall Street journeyman. He joined the NYSE from UBS, where he served as chief operating officer of the equity business in the U.S. Prior to that he co-ran Schwab’s capital markets business. Before that, Leibowitz co-founded a quantitative hedge fund called Bunker Capital, served as CEO of REDIbook and headed up quant trading at CSFB.
The older brother is said to be a pretty unassuming, often quiet kind of guy who dislikes being mentioned as Jon Stewart's older brother.

I am sure John Stewart tore a strip into his brother at Xmas Dinner just like he did to Cramer. Only fair.....

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by pepper24

I am sure John Stewart tore a strip into his brother at Xmas Dinner just like he did to Cramer. Only fair.....

Maybe his brother told him to short the **** out of everything! hehe