Jon Stewart destroys CNBC shills

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
I saw that, and it was great, but didn't it come about because their scheduled CNBC guest cancelled? If he thinks so little of CNBC, why have one of their anchors on the show?
 
CNBC broadcasts market opinion 14 hours a day, 5 days a week.

I'm shocked that Stewart could find clips like those.
 
Bluer White said:
You mean that some of it will be wrong ?
Click to expand...



no, that we have breathless caffeination that passes as business analysis.

i think that's what Stewart was getting at. not that people were wrong, but in how the wrongness was packaged and sold as a television channel who's real M.O. was to perform fellatio on Big Business and further along the cult of Wall Street worship.

that, and the fact that Rick Santelli is a jackass.
 
Irvine511 said:
i think that's what Stewart was getting at. not that people were wrong, but in how the wrongness was packaged and sold as a television channel who's real M.O. was to perform fellatio on Big Business and further along the cult of Wall Street worship.
Click to expand...

Stewart is a comedian who was stood up by a CNBC guest. I don't read any more or less into his piece on the Daily Show.

I think that transparency on business news has improved quite a bit since the dot.com crash. You would probably disagree. Do you think that business news channels should exist, and who should operate them?


Anyway, here is CNBC minion Jim Cramer and his rebuttal to Press Secretary Gibbs and Mr. Stewart:
Cramer Takes on the White House, Frank Rich and Jon Stewart | News | Money/Investing | Mainstreet
 
Irvine511 said:
no, that we have breathless caffeination that passes as business analysis.

i think that's what Stewart was getting at. not that people were wrong, but in how the wrongness was packaged and sold as a television channel who's real M.O. was to perform fellatio on Big Business and further along the cult of Wall Street worship.

that, and the fact that Rick Santelli is a jackass.
Click to expand...

I agree.

It's not that someone who 'forecasts', might be 'wrong' or that it is anything novel or 'gotcha!'.

It's that the whole nature of their programming is to attract viewers and therefore jerk-off the business community.

They aren't providing a service, they are just providing a product to be sold to that community. It's sort of like Fox News or MSNBC, they aren't biased because of political ambition, it's just a scheme or a strategy to increase viewership.

So CNBC is to objective business news as these others are to their supposed news niches. Coveting a demographic. Which is The Daily Show's pretty consistent view towards cable news in general. "You guys aren't journalists!!!
 
U2DMfan said:
Jim Cramer didn't recommend buying Bear Stearns stock a week before it collapsed -- he did it five days earlier
Click to expand...


i think this gets at it.

CNBC sells/sold the then unimpeachable credibility of Wall Street like Judy Miller did the "evidence" of WMDs in Iraq.

i think it's pretty clear to me that many MSNBC pundits are closely tied to their friends on Wall Street, and they amped up their business less because they were shilling for their friends, imho, and more because they actually believed in their friends.

they're as guilty of anyone not for the collapse, but for the cult of personality that surrounded the "geniuses" on Wall Street.
 
financeguy said:
CNBC Gives Financial Advice | The Daily Show | Comedy Central
Click to expand...

Very proud of him for that; he's been doing it since last week with his discussion with an NY Times reporter, who talked about these folks. He should also take down those CNN bastards who were really into it in the '90s like Lou Dobbs, who has totally changed his image.

Now CNN, in its greedy, simple-minded pursuit of ratings and celebrity for its idiot anchors like Rick Sanchez, is warning of Obama bringing socialism. I hate these under-educated morons who think they're "common sense" and have all the real answers and claim to ask pertinent questions, under the guise of scare-mongering and sensationalism. Bastards.

Al Qaeda should've attacked the mainstream media, not a bunch of innocent liberals at the World Trade Center, who were more likely to bring understanding about the Muslim world.
MissVelvetDress_75 said:
:lmao:

I cannot stand Cramer. He gives me a headache.
Click to expand...
I think he also vociferously endorsed the War in Iraq.
 
Muldfeld said:
Al Qaeda should've attacked the mainstream media, not a bunch of innocent liberals at the World Trade Center, who were more likely to bring understanding about the Muslim world.
Click to expand...

Your implication that the mainstream media are less innocent/more worthy of being murdered than other American citizens is disgusting. It's one thing to share an opinion, it's another to advocate mass murder of a group simply because you don't like them. I suggest you put a little more thought into the implications of what you're saying before you post it.
 
CNBC Under Fire: Sticking Up for the Big Guy?
By James Poniewozik

On the March 9 edition of CNBC's Squawk Box, Becky Quick was interviewing Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffett when the Oracle of Omaha expressed support for the Obama Administration's mortgage bailout. "Becky," co-host Joe Kernen broke in, "tell Warren you're mad that you've done all the right things and all these other people are going to get bailed out." Buffett replied, "There's nothing wrong with being mad, Joe. It's just that there are times when you're mad about something that you've got to overcome the emotion."

That is why Buffett is not in the cable-news business. For as the economy nose-dives, CNBC — the TV darling of the turn-of-the-century stock boom — is proudly letting the emotion overcome it. (Read about Buffett's tell-all biography.)

In February, reporter Rick Santelli launched into an on-air rant against helping "losers" with their mortgages, a viral-video hit that made Santelli the poor man's Rush Limbaugh — or is that the rich man's? Kudlow Report host Larry Kudlow opined that President Obama "is waging war against capital." Stock picker and professional gasket blower Jim Cramer trained his bulging eyes on Washington, accusing Obama of "the greatest wealth destruction I've ever seen by a President."

To watch CNBC today is to enter an alternative universe, where élites are populists, Wall Street is Main Street and bank executives are the oppressed. It's not surprising that a voice of opposition to the new Administration would emerge. But who would have thought it would be on a channel not owned by Rupert Murdoch?

In a way, CNBC has no choice but to become political, since the economy itself has. And CNBC faces the same dilemma as the rest of the media: If psychology drives the economy, when does reporting bad news become creating bad news? How do you walk the line between desperate cheerleading and reckless ranting?

CNBC's answer has been to dive off both sides of the line at once. On the silver-lining-hunt side, its straight-news interviewers now spend uncomfortable days (even when not talking about parent company GE's woes) pleading with gloom-saying guests to declare a bottom to the market or find stock picks. "Do you have just one?" Steve Liesman asked an investment adviser, almost plaintively.

On the ranting side, it has increasingly pinned the state of the economy on the two-month-old Administration, with Cramer offering recommendations to "Obama-proof your portfolio," a phrase that now comes up regularly on CNBC's air. (In response, The Daily Show aired a clip reel of the network's bad calls during the bubble, suggesting viewers might prefer to CNBC-proof their portfolios.)

CNBC's reaction is colored by its stressed-out day trader's focus on the short term. When ordinary people think about the economy, they think about jobs, college, retirement. Sure, the stock market affects them in the long run — but so do job security and the threat of getting wiped out by health-care bills. When CNBC considers the economy, it means Wall Street's numbers that day, that hour, that minute. CNBC may pay lip service to the long term, but it has the time horizon of a fruit fly.

This means that CNBC looks at everything, particularly politics, in terms of how it will affect "the Market." The commentators on CNBC murmur about the Market as if it were the Island on Lost: a mystic force that must be placated, lest it become angry and punish us. "The Market doesn't like ..." "What the Market wants to see is ..."

And, oooh, is the Market cranky at Obama! The Market doesn't like raising taxes on the wealthy (even if Buffett does). The Market doesn't like government health-care reform or cap-and-trade environmental policy or big budgets or limiting bonuses at bailed-out banks. And don't get the Market started on bank nationalization. That ticks the Market off!

It is as if — between MSNBC and CNBC — NBC News were trying to own the liberal and conservative voices of cable news. But CNBC's is a much different strain of conservatism from Sarah Palin's or Bill O'Reilly's: it is urban, club-room and Mammon-oriented rather than small-town, VFW-hall and God-oriented. It's an ideology not exclusively beholden to party (Cramer voted for Obama), but it's an ideology nonetheless.

It's also an ideology that you'd think, given the track record of trusted financial institutions, people would be a little wary of crowing in public nowadays. But ratings are up. As the rest of the country stews over the mismanagement of insurers and banks, there's still a small, demographically appealing niche for talking heads fulminating against the "demonization" of business and being in favor of laissez-faire government.

Hey, somebody's gotta stick up for the little guy. Even, or especially, when he's the big guy.
Click to expand...



i'm very excited to watch Cramer stand up for himself. it's shameful that he's being picked on by Stewart simply because he's been wrong about everything.
 
But then again who takes investment advice from a talk show host? The whole premise of picking stocks based on what a talk show host recommends seems questionable to me.
 
financeguy said:
But then again who takes investment advice from a talk show host? The whole premise of picking stocks based on what a talk show host recommends seems questionable to me.
Click to expand...



i agree, but CNBC's job was to convince you that their analysts were right. it's the same old same old for the US that has been around since the days of P.T. Barnum and your archetypal snake oil salesman -- one man convinces you that he knows more than the rest of those suckers out there, and if you do what he says and buys what he says, then you'll get rich just like him.

but the only people who really got rich were the brokers.

if anyone hasn't seen "There Will Be Blood," they really ought to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

N
NBA 2023-24 Thread
10 11 12
Replies
337
Views
10K
U2inUtah
U2inUtah
A
The little stranger chapter 12
Replies
0
Views
727
annj
A
nbelcik
Jon Stewart retiring from the Daily Show
2
Replies
42
Views
3K
MrsSpringsteen
MrsSpringsteen
A
The little stranger chapter 10
Replies
0
Views
675
annj
A
A
The Little Stranger chapter 14
Replies
0
Views
518
annj
A

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom