What do the Padres, Blue Jays, Rockies, and Astros have in common?

[pravata]

Gammons notes

Major League Baseball has warned club businesspeople that attendance is expected to be down 17-20 percent in 2009, and that it could be worse, especially for franchises such as the San Diego Padres, Toronto Blue Jays, Detroit Tigers, Cleveland Indians, Houston Astros, Colorado Rockies and others that could be seriously impacted by the recession.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=3963638&name=gammons_peter

Is Gammons saying those cities will be more seriously affected by the recession than for instance Chicago or New York, maybe, Cameron Smith Baseball Insider at the Washington Post interprets this this way

Peter Gammons ...the numbers are startling. Led by franchises like the Padres, Blue Jays, Astros and Rockies, Gammons projects that league-wide attendance could drop a full 20 percent -- or more -- given the recession and poor play of those franchises.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/baseball-insider/2009/03/bracing_for_an_attendance_melt.html

Gammons is reporting what MLB is telling teams, he seems to think Houston will be affected by the recession the same as Detroit and Cleveland.   Alright, he's wandering out of his field of expertise, Boston, he has an excuse.  Cameron Smith, writing about baseball thinks the Astros attendance will drop because they play like the Rockies and Padres. Bite me.

[hostros7]

I already know of several people who cancelled their season tickets.  Although pragmatists here have opined to the contrary, or more precisely the infeasible nature of expanding the payroll, public perception is around town that the Astros "did nothing" this offseason.  Now that people are having to make more shrewd decisions about where to allocate their dollars, I think there's a chance attendance could be down dramatically.  Maybe not at first, but if this team is out of the race in the summer, the franchise could really be hurting at the turnstiles. 

[pravata]

I already know of several people who cancelled their season tickets.  Although pragmatists here have opined to the contrary, or more precisely the infeasible nature of expanding the payroll, public perception is around town that the Astros "did nothing" this offseason.  Now that people are having to make more shrewd decisions about where to allocate their dollars, I think there's a chance attendance could be down dramatically.  Maybe not at first, but if this team is out of the race in the summer, the franchise could really be hurting at the turnstiles. 

That's exactly the word I think of when I think of most of the baseball observers in Houston - "shrewd".   Money issues I can appreciate, however, anticipating an attendance downturn because of the Astros "poor play" is bullshit.   

[Andyzipp]

That's exactly the word I think of when I think of most of the baseball observers in Houston - "shrewd".   Money issues I can appreciate, however, anticipating an attendance downturn because of the Astros "poor play" is bullshit.  

I would say the money issue is reaching a bit.  Sure it could happen, but the housing market and employment market haven't gone to absolute shit (yet) in Houston or in Texas for that matter.  I think 20% is a stretch.  Maybe 7-10%. 

[hostros7]

That's exactly the word I think of when I think of most of the baseball observers in Houston - "shrewd".   Money issues I can appreciate, however, anticipating an attendance downturn because of the Astros "poor play" is bullshit.   

Listen, I'd spend a day at the ballpark on a 105 degree day between a 20-80 astros team and a 20-80 Royals team and love it.  Just saying, Dick and Suzy Astrosfan might not share that opinion.  Particularly, if they realize that Craig Biggio is no longer starting at 2nd base.  Then the franchise is really up shitcreek.  20%?  I think that's a stretch, but there could be a meaningful drop in revenue.

[Limey]

I would say the money issue is reaching a bit.  Sure it could happen, but the housing market and employment market haven't gone to absolute shit (yet) in Houston or in Texas for that matter.  I think 20% is a stretch.  Maybe 7-10%. 

You clearly are not trying to sell a house in Houston.

Having said that, anything that Gammons says that MLB is saying is BS squared.

[Texifornia]

The economy here in SoCal is auguring into the ground so I can see why SD is on that list, but I think Houston's economy will prove to be a bit firmer. Nobody will get out unscathed, but I don't think Gammons is any better suited to make economic predictions that the bloviating jackasses on CNBC.....OK, he's probably better than that, but still.

[pravata]

The economy here in SoCal is auguring into the ground so I can see why SD is on that list, but I think Houston's economy will prove to be a bit firmer. Nobody will get out unscathed, but I don't think Gammons is any better suited to make economic predictions that the bloviating jackasses on CNBC.....OK, he's probably better than that, but still.

I got no problem with what Gammons reported, he's passing along the MLB position on the recession and makes typically ill informed comments about the cities who will be most affected, so far we are in the realm of "acceptable" (graded on a curve) "reporting".  But the Washington Post clown is an idiot.

[Limey]

The economy here in SoCal is auguring into the ground so I can see why SD is on that list, but I think Houston's economy will prove to be a bit firmer. Nobody will get out unscathed, but I don't think Gammons is any better suited to make economic predictions that the bloviating jackasses on CNBC.....OK, he's probably better than that, but still.

One of the aforementioned "bloviating jackasses on CNBC" decided to bail on the Daily Show.  Not a good idea leaving them with some time to fill.

[Gizzmonic]

If this is true, can Drayton ask the Cubs ownership for a bailout?

[hostros7]

If this is true, can Drayton ask the Cubs ownership for a bailout?

Pray to Jebus, no.  When like enterprises "bail" each other out, it is most commonly takes the form of a merger (i.e Merrill-BofA, Wachovia-Wells Fargo, etc).  I really would appreciate not having the thought of my own dick in my ass every time I said "fuck the Cubs." 

[Jose Cruz III]

Well at least Detroit has Dontrelle Willis.

[Texifornia]

One of the aforementioned "bloviating jackasses on CNBC" decided to bail on the Daily Show.  Not a good idea leaving them with some time to fill.

"If I had just listened to CNBC I would have a million dollars today. Provided that I'd started with a hundred million dollars".

"is it fun being a billionaire?" ....It's hard to do investigative reporting when you're tossing the crook's salad all day.

If I find I have a stock that one of those yay-hoos is touting, I sell that shit right quick.

[Lurch]

That was pathetic.  I used to enjoy The Daily Show, but it has become unwatchable with that shit.  If you found yourself agreeing with just about any of it, congratulations, you've been swept up in the moment of laughing audiences, failing to recognize the bs behind it all.  You and the majority of voting 20 year olds, I'm afraid.

[Ron Brand]

Aaaah, bullshit. Stewart and his crew were right on target. If only we had somebody like that to take on ESPN.

[Lurch]

Aaaah, bullshit. Stewart and his crew were right on target. If only we had somebody like that to take on ESPN.

Do tell.  Which part exactly?  I'm quite confident you haven't thought this through.  See above comment.

[jonbloozy]

Aaaah, bullshit. Stewart and his crew were right on target. If only we had somebody like that to take on ESPN.

I tend to agree with Lurch.  Not that Stewart and Co. are off always off on their the commentaries, but their bias is blatantly evident.  I tend to be more independant, but my liberal-ass brother always points to The Daily Show to reinforce his points.  Wow, I guess analysts may be wrong.  It's a good thing I don't watch ESPN.

[Ron Brand]

I thought he and his staff were correct that CNBC's analysts were as clueless and incorrect as any others; part of the reason for his attack was that their guy canceled.  And they were very funny.  I don't make the mistake of thinking Stewart isn't biased or that it's news - it's a comedy show.  It's funny.  It's sharper than most other comedy shows.  Don't take it so seriously.

[Limey]

That was pathetic.  I used to enjoy The Daily Show, but it has become unwatchable with that shit.  If you found yourself agreeing with just about any of it, congratulations, you've been swept up in the moment of laughing audiences, failing to recognize the bs behind it all.  You and the majority of voting 20 year olds, I'm afraid.

Rick Santelli's rant was bullshit.  Jim Cramer is full of bullshit.  Sucking off Stanford, pre- or post-scandal is bullshit.

The Daily Show is bullshit, but they don't pretend to be otherwise.

[Ron Brand]

Not that Stewart and Co. are off always off on their the commentaries, but their bias is blatantly evident.  I tend to be more independant, but my liberal-ass brother always points to The Daily Show to reinforce his points.  Wow, I guess analysts may be wrong.  It's a good thing I don't watch ESPN.

That was the whole point - analysts may (and often are) wrong, and when you hold yourself up to being All-Knowing, etc., you're giving humorists a big target that they won't ignore if you give them enough time.  It's fair to call what Stewart does "commentary" but really, it's comedy and using his show to reinforce your points probably isn't the best way to prove yourself correct.

Biased? Of course. It's Jon Stewart's show. It's what he thinks his audience will find funny. This ain't no Fair and Balanced claim here, it's the freaking Comedy Channel. It's not the place to look for insightful financial or political knowledge or advice. It's a good place to go if you don't mind laughing at self-important egotists and oddballs. I just wish someone with a national stage would show how crappy ESPN has become and take a few shots at their so-called 'analysts.'

[BudGirl]

He used the term whack-a-mole with Nancy Pelosi a couple weeks ago.  He's funny.

[Guinness]

part of the reason for his attack was that their guy canceled. 

And like the old newspaper saying sort of goes, don't piss off people who buy ink by the barrel...

[Gizzmonic]

As a diehard Mets fan, Mr. Stewart would be interested to know that El Jheri Curl is begging for Omar Minaya to call him.  I've heard the guys on Baseball This Morning say there has been some interest, but that Pedro is pricing himself out of the market.

[Mr. Happy]

Rick Santelli's rant was bullshit.  Jim Cramer is full of bullshit.  Sucking off Stanford, pre- or post-scandal is bullshit.

The Daily Show is bullshit, but they don't pretend to be otherwise.

Limey, old boy, you're correct.

[pravata]

Rick Santelli's rant was bullshit.  Jim Cramer is full of bullshit.  Sucking off Stanford, pre- or post-scandal is bullshit.

The Daily Show is bullshit, but they don't pretend to be otherwise.

Since it's my thread what's been highjacked, ...the Daily Show uses the simple technique of letting the assholes make assholes of themselves.  They juxtapose a clip of some assholes saying one thing and then saying he never said that.  Or saying one thing one day and exactly the opposite the next.  They let the clips speak largely for themselves.  If this is biased, O.K.  They choose which assholes to highlight and leave other assholes alone.  But a few nights ago Stewart highlighted an Obama speech that lifted exact phrases from previous speeches by Bush.   Stewarts' "commentary" is usually simply pie eyed wonder, or as in this last incident, a forceful, and satisfying "fuck you".   By the way, that CNBC compilation took a while to make, that wasn't tossed off in the interval when Santelli cancelled. 

[Ron Brand]

By the way, that CNBC compilation took a while to make, that wasn't tossed off in the interval when Santelli cancelled. 

Stewart said as much in yesterday's show, when he took on Cramer.

[Limey]

And like the old newspaper saying sort of goes, don't piss off people who buy ink by the barrel...

You might need to tattoo it on Cramer's forehead.

[GreatBagwellsBeard]

Cut Cramer some slack. It took guts to upgrade Bluth Industries to a Don't Buy.

[Limey]

Since it's my thread what's been highjacked, ...the Daily Show uses the simple technique of letting the assholes make assholes of themselves.  They juxtapose a clip of some assholes saying one thing and then saying he never said that.  Or saying one thing one day and exactly the opposite the next.  They let the clips speak largely for themselves.  If this is biased, O.K.  They choose which assholes to highlight and leave other assholes alone.  But a few nights ago Stewart highlighted an Obama speech that lifted exact phrases from previous speeches by Bush.   Stewarts' "commentary" is usually simply pie eyed wonder, or as in this last incident, a forceful, and satisfying "fuck you".   By the way, that CNBC compilation took a while to make, that wasn't tossed off in the interval when Santelli cancelled. 

Here ya go.

[pravata]

Here ya go.

Not smart to get in a pissing match with a guy who can have Dora the Explorer call you a pendejo.

[BudGirl]

Not smart to get in a pissing match with a guy who can have Dora the Explorer call you a pendejo.

classic

[Bench]

Cramer will be the guest on the Daily Show tomorrow night.

[Limey]

Cramer will be the guest on the Daily Show tomorrow night.

Boy that was awkward.  It was like the final scene of Butch Cassidy, except that the victim was more outgunned and in no way cool.

[pravata]

Boy that was awkward.  It was like the final scene of Butch Cassidy, except that the victim was more outgunned and in no way cool.

We have a 2 year old beagle pup, every time she greets you she rolls over and exposes her belly, that is what Cramer reminded me of.

[matadorph]

That was an epic beatdown. Stewart pulled no punches. I felt empathy for Cramer for having to be the one to answer for his network's clownishness, but he did bring it on himself by publicly calling out TDS. 

Of course, I'd rather that schmeezewad Santelli been the one to get brutally pantsed.

[Limey]

That was an epic beatdown. Stewart pulled no punches. I felt empathy for Cramer for having to be the one to answer for his network's clownishness, but he did bring it on himself by publicly calling out TDS.

Of course, I'd rather that schmeezewad Santelli been the one to get brutally pantsed.

As Stewart pointed out to him, (paraphrasing from memory) we invested our savings and pensions with you people who then played with it like it was a game...well it's not a fucking game!

[BlownRanger]

Back to the Gammons take:

If the Astros are in contention in September, it will be the fifth time in six years.  And for the fifth time in six years Gammons and the rest of his ilk will say "Wow. NOBODY saw this coming!"

[matadorph]

Back to the Gammons take:

If the Astros are in contention in September, it will be the fifth time in six years.  And for the fifth time in six years Gammons and the rest of his ilk will say "Wow. NOBODY saw this coming!"

Except LaGenius.

[Limey]

Back to the Gammons take:

If the Astros are in contention in September, it will be the fifth time in six years.  And for the fifth time in six years Gammons and the rest of his ilk will say "Wow. NOBODY saw this coming!"

It was either Einstein...or Jim Cramer...who said that repeating the same behaviour expecting a different outcome is the definition of stupidity.

[MusicMan]

Insanity, not stupidity.

[pravata]

Insanity, not stupidity.

That works too, well maybe not insane, definitely milky in the filbert.

[Noe]

As Stewart pointed out to him, (paraphrasing from memory) we invested our savings and pensions with you people who then played with it like it was a game...well it's not a fucking game!

Really?  He was complaining about that?  Why?  Is it a problem that television personalities are well... infallible and people take the word of a talking head on the tv set as gospel?  Isn't what Stewart is saying then that people are too stupid to think for themselves, so you folks should be ashamed for taking advantage of them.

Pot meet kettle.

BTW - when is Stewart going to take on Oprah Winfrey next?  He could have a field day on 1) what she says (pick a subject, any subject) 2) how many people take her word as gospel and 3) not laugh out loud because he is a charter member of the tv personality that is now a voice that people listen to and take as gospel, so be careful when (as Bum said) "four them fingers in your hand are pointing back at you!".

I like what Groucho Marx said best though "I don't want to belong to any country club that would have me as a member".  Stewart is a member of the very thing he's blasting now, television personalities who shape our society with their message.  People are gullible and he knows it.  Taking on the financial advise folks is easy low hanging fruit right now because we're in a recession.  But when you think about the *other* aspects of life and how much politically, morally or otherwise is shaped by opinion makers in the media and entertainment, then I find Stewart's moral indignation laughable.

He is after all, just trying to do a show that is topical and will garner more viewership.  Seen this before and eventually people wise up and move on with personalities.  Oprah notwithstanding, she has some magical staying power that no one seems to understand.

[MusicMan]

BTW - when is Stewart going to take on Oprah Winfrey next?  He could have a field day on 1) what she says (pick a subject, any subject) 2) how many people take her word as gospel and 3) not laugh out loud because he is a charter member of the tv personality that is now a voice that people listen to and take as gospel, so be careful when (as Bum said) "four them fingers in your hand are pointing back at you!".

I still maintain that instead of the stimulus bill, Pres. Obama should have just asked Oprah to tell her viewers to go out and spend money, and exactly what products to spend it on.  I assure you, this plan would not have failed.

[Mr. Happy]

I still maintain that instead of the stimulus bill, Pres. Obama should have just asked Oprah to tell her viewers to go out and spend money, and exactly what products to spend it on.  I assure you, this plan would not have failed.

I think that you are correct. It's time for a little cheerleading in the economy from our leaders.

[matadorph]

Really?  He was complaining about that?  Why?  Is it a problem that television personalities are well... infallible and people take the word of a talking head on the tv set as gospel?  Isn't what Stewart is saying then that people are too stupid to think for themselves, so you folks should be ashamed for taking advantage of them.

Pot meet kettle.

BTW - when is Stewart going to take on Oprah Winfrey next?  He could have a field day on 1) what she says (pick a subject, any subject) 2) how many people take her word as gospel and 3) not laugh out loud because he is a charter member of the tv personality that is now a voice that people listen to and take as gospel, so be careful when (as Bum said) "four them fingers in your hand are pointing back at you!".

I like what Groucho Marx said best though "I don't want to belong to any country club that would have me as a member".  Stewart is a member of the very thing he's blasting now, television personalities who shape our society with their message.  People are gullible and he knows it.  Taking on the financial advise folks is easy low hanging fruit right now because we're in a recession.  But when you think about the *other* aspects of life and how much politically, morally or otherwise is shaped by opinion makers in the media and entertainment, then I find Stewart's moral indignation laughable.

He is after all, just trying to do a show that is topical and will garner more viewership.  Seen this before and eventually people wise up and move on with personalities.  Oprah notwithstanding, she has some magical staying power that no one seems to understand.

Noe, Limey was paraphrasing from memory. Maybe you should watch the interview, then decide. Stewart's criticism of CNBC (through Cramer) was spot-on.

[Ron Brand]

Watch the unedited complete version on comedychannel's home page.

[jonbloozy]

Now you can Avenge Cramer's disgrace at the hands of Jon Stewart!

[austro]

Now you can Avenge Cramer's disgrace at the hands of Jon Stewart!

Man, I had forgotten how much fun Asteroids was!

[jonbloozy]

Man, I had forgotten how much fun Asteroids was!

For the full Jim Cramer effect, you have to drink about 12 cups of coffee and roll up your shirt sleeves past your elbows.  Then, BUY BUY BUY BUY BUY!

[MusicMan]

Now you can Avenge Cramer's disgrace at the hands of Jon Stewart!

"Do you have Asteroids?"
"No, but my dad does..."

[Limey]

"Do you have Asteroids?"
"No, but my dad does..."

Noe, why are hemorrhoids called hemorrhoids and asteroids called asteroids?  Shouldn't it be the other way around?

[Limey]

Really?  He was complaining about that?  Why?  Is it a problem that television personalities are well... infallible and people take the word of a talking head on the tv set as gospel?  Isn't what Stewart is saying then that people are too stupid to think for themselves, so you folks should be ashamed for taking advantage of them.

Pot meet kettle.

Stewart's contention is that CNBC advertises itself as the network of inside knowledge.  He showed - over the arc of this spat - a number of CNBC promos which support his contention.  "In Cramer We Trust".  So, when CNBC are caught pandering to executives, instead of interrogating them, and offering up opinions based upon nothing other than the general trend of the direction of growth of their own pubic hair, they are doing the public a disservice.

Cramer's excuse was that they were lied to by CEO's etc. the same as everyone else.  OK, that's fine.  But don't claim to be the be-all and end-all of financial reporting when all you're really doing is reading press releases.  How about taking the CEO's comments, and then fact-checking?  Cramer's response was to acquiesce to doing a better job of that in the future.

[austro]

If CNBC really wanted to help the investing public, they could put together a series where they examined the financial statements of various companies (both good and bad investments) and explain what to look for (green flags and red flags). Investing 101, as it were.

[Limey]

If CNBC really wanted to help the investing public, they could put together a series where they examined the financial statements of various companies (both good and bad investments) and explain what to look for (green flags and red flags). Investing 101, as it were.

Right.  One of Stewart's digs at Cramer (and he made it clear that Cramer has become the poster child for CNBC, which is unfair) is that they had to (or should have) known that Bear Stearns was leveraged 35 to 1.  Even to the uninformed, that's a horrendous ratio.  Yet they/he continued to tout the company.  That's why he's mad at CNBC and that's what he claims they have to answer for.  I agree.

[VirtualBob]

Noe, why are hemorrhoids called hemorrhoids and asteroids called asteroids?  Shouldn't it be the other way around?

Aren't Assteroids what the Rocket is accused of taking?

[Noe]

Stewart's contention is that CNBC advertises itself as the network of inside knowledge.  He showed - over the arc of this spat - a number of CNBC promos which support his contention.  "In Cramer We Trust".  So, when CNBC are caught pandering to executives, instead of interrogating them, and offering up opinions based upon nothing other than the general trend of the direction of growth of their own pubic hair, they are doing the public a disservice.

Cramer's excuse was that they were lied to by CEO's etc. the same as everyone else.  OK, that's fine.  But don't claim to be the be-all and end-all of financial reporting when all you're really doing is reading press releases.  How about taking the CEO's comments, and then fact-checking?  Cramer's response was to acquiesce to doing a better job of that in the future.

I have no problem when Stewart will call bullshit when it's something a broadcast station will call itself, like "unbiased news reporting" or "nothing but the truth" because they're not really about those things, but those catch phrases are what *sells* and *THAT* is the name of the game (if any game is *REALLY* what is in question here).  The same game that Stewart is in too.  So Stewart catches a few broadcast media using 5th avenue tatics to sell advertising space by showing increased viewship... wow!  What a freaking revelation by Mr. Stewart.  Thank you, thank you very much Mr. Obvious!  What does Stewart expect the CNBC broadcast group to call themselves?  "Ah... well, we don't really know how the market will go, sometimes up and sometimes down... the best advice is don't panic and stay in for the long run because history shows market fluctuations are non-predictable but if you are one prone to ride out the market, you'll be safe."  That show will last all of 20 seconds and then you'll have nothing but dead air.  Admit it, when a qet rich quick scheme does not work, like day trading or ponzi schemes, we will always blame someone for hoodwinking us!  But what does that say about *us*? Maybe a great show for Stewart would be to turn the cameras on the very audience applauding him for going after the screaming heads on television and ask one very pertinent question "Why do you listen to these freaks?  Hell, why do you applaud me for that matter?  I am doing this to make money just like they are, same thing, different method or subject matter but I need you, Mr. American viewing audience to be this gullible to waste half and hour to an hour tuning in!"

I still contend that it will push the hot button of the American gullible audience to go after anyone and everyone that smells like, talks like, acts like financial advisors or bankers because right now, someone has got to pay for our recession!  Someone... anyone damn it!  But not the people who made stupid decisions and *THEN* don't have the cajones to live up to their own decisions!  WFW if you want to blame CNBC for your failed decisions Mr. Stewart.  WFW!

[Noe]

Noe, Limey was paraphrasing from memory. Maybe you should watch the interview, then decide. Stewart's criticism of CNBC (through Cramer) was spot-on.

And that criticism was what?  Inaccuracy?  Line 'em up and shoot them all.  You won't have anyone left in the media business including Stewart.  Let me say it again... media is a business, not a stinking public service.  If you rely on the media for making your own decision, you deserve whatever you get in terms of stupid outcomes, and again, that includes Stewart!

[Noe]

Right.  One of Stewart's digs at Cramer (and he made it clear that Cramer has become the poster child for CNBC, which is unfair) is that they had to (or should have) known that Bear Stearns was leveraged 35 to 1.  Even to the uninformed, that's a horrendous ratio.  Yet they/he continued to tout the company.  That's why he's mad at CNBC and that's what he claims they have to answer for.  I agree.

But why is he mad at them for being stupid?  I don't really see Stewart really being mad, he is taking full advantage of a great opportunity to make his ratings go up (and thus make money).  Don't you see, he *HAS* to go after them because they're easy targets because 1) we're in a recession and 2) they made some horrible mistakes as financial advisors.  DING, DING, DING, we got us a show fellas!   Line up those ducks in that dar barrel, watch me shoot them all... and charge all these here good folks ten dollars a head to watch me do it too!  Yee-haw!

I really don't understand the indignation right now against CNBC when all they were doing is their job as media folks.  Making money for their company.  What are we going to do next, tar and feather weathermen who don't get their forecast correct and make me walk out into the street without an umbrella?

[Noe]

I still maintain that instead of the stimulus bill, Pres. Obama should have just asked Oprah to tell her viewers to go out and spend money, and exactly what products to spend it on.  I assure you, this plan would not have failed.

If each one of Oprah's viewers would buy a fridge, this recession would be over!  It is your American duty to do so!

[Noe]

Now you can Avenge Cramer's disgrace at the hands of Jon Stewart!

Wouldn't it be nicer to go back to the tar and feather routine that was used several hundred years ago?  Oh yeah, I forgot, we're much more sophisticated nowadays.

[Bench]

Noe, why are you so cynical?

[Noe]

Noe, why are you so cynical?

Because neither Jon Stewart nor Cramer from CNBC have the slightest of gaps as to what they both are.  I'm not cynical, I am practical in this matter.  Be careful who that knight in shining armor is because you're going to be very disappointed later on when you find out it really wasn't for your sake that they did what they did.  You're just a convenient pawn in their game of life.

In the game that these folks are playing, one loses money and the other makes money.  You decide which is which with your viewership.

[HudsonHawk]

I tend to agree with Lurch.  Not that Stewart and Co. are off always off on their the commentaries, but their bias is blatantly evident.

Their bias towards what?  Getting laughs?  Stewarts job, the reason for his existence, is to make wise-ass remarks about politics.  Who does it better?

[matadorph]

And that criticism was what?  Inaccuracy?  Line 'em up and shoot them all.  You won't have anyone left in the media business including Stewart.  Let me say it again... media is a business, not a stinking public service.  If you rely on the media for making your own decision, you deserve whatever you get in terms of stupid outcomes, and again, that includes Stewart!

Did you watch the interview yet? It doesn't sound like it.

[matadorph]

But why is he mad at them for being stupid?  I don't really see Stewart really being mad, he is taking full advantage of a great opportunity to make his ratings go up (and thus make money).  Don't you see, he *HAS* to go after them because they're easy targets because 1) we're in a recession and 2) they made some horrible mistakes as financial advisors.  DING, DING, DING, we got us a show fellas!   Line up those ducks in that dar barrel, watch me shoot them all... and charge all these here good folks ten dollars a head to watch me do it too!  Yee-haw!

Are you familiar at all with how this whole thing got started? This is decidedly not a ratings stunt for Stewart. He is genuinely pissed off, for good reason. Cramer fanned the feud between the network and The Daily Show when he stuck his neck out and chided Stewart for Stewart's reasonable critique.

I really don't understand the indignation right now against CNBC when all they were doing is their job as media folks.  Making money for their company.  What are we going to do next, tar and feather weathermen who don't get their forecast correct and make me walk out into the street without an umbrella?

NBC is licensed by the FCC, Noe. They are not "just a business." There is a public service component to what they do. Their failure to do their jobs and not just accept bullshit answers from lying CEOs is what Stewart is hammering them for.

[Rebel Jew]

For the full Jim Cramer effect, you have to drink about 12 cups of coffee and roll up your shirt sleeves past your elbows.

I watched part of this earlier, and while I've never heard of Jim Cramer before this, that shirt sleeves/ coffee high thing is to me obviously the most hilarious part of this whole thing.  I mean it's such a caricature of a stock broker, he might as well be a halloween costume.

[jonbloozy]

Their bias towards what?  Getting laughs?  Stewarts job, the reason for his existence, is to make wise-ass remarks about politics.  Who does it better?

I re-read my post.  While it isn't really relevant in this hijacked thread, the bias I'm referring to has to do with his left leg being shorter than his right.  There's nothing wrong with that (it's his show).  Without going too far into Palin WTF territory, it's the same problem I have with Fox News.  Yes, a lot of their stories are accurate, but if you look at which stories they choose to focus on, the bias is much more evident.  

IMO, there's nothing wrong with being liberal.  I personally enjoy the Daily Show, but it irks me when someone (my brother, in this case) chooses to form their opinions based on what Jon Stewart says . . . or Rush Limbaugh for that matter.  You have to look at the source.  

Also, my reference to my "liberal-ass" brother may seem a little insensitive, but he really is a fucking hippy.  There's just no excuse for that.    

[pravata]

.. WFW if you want to blame CNBC for your failed decisions Mr. Stewart.  WFW!

Not Mr Stewart, Mrs Stewart, his 75 year old mom apparently.  But she has no excuse either since her other son is in the business.  But fair enough, tough luck for the old woman for believing what she hears on TV.  There's wolves out there and if you're too slow you get eaten.   Stewart's real point was the same we make about sports writers, don't pretend you're an expert on something that you're not. 

[Rebel Jew]

Because neither Jon Stewart nor Cramer from CNBC have the slightest of gaps as to what they both are.  I'm not cynical, I am practical in this matter.  Be careful who that knight in shining armor is because you're going to be very disappointed later on when you find out it really wasn't for your sake that they did what they did.  You're just a convenient pawn in their game of life.

In the game that these folks are playing, one loses money and the other makes money.  You decide which is which with your viewership.

the irony, of course, is that stewart proclaims himself to be merely a comedian (and that seems to be his catch-all way out of criticism-- the "i'm on a comedy channel!" defense), but he's positioning himself as a serious news and media watchdog voice.  at some point he might have to put his money where his mouth is and do some real investigative journalism of his own.

[pravata]

..chooses to form their opinions based on what Jon Stewart says . . . or Rush Limbaugh for that matter.  ..

Few people form their opinion on what Stewart says.  As has been proven in many surveys, the people who watch the Daily Show already know the news, otherwise the jokes wouldn't make sense.

[austro]

Without going too far into Palin WTF territory, it's the same problem I have with Fox News.  Yes, a lot of their stories are accurate, but if you look at which stories they choose to focus on, the bias is much more evident.  

The difference is that Stewart makes no bones that his show is left-leaning entertainment. Fox actually believes that they're a responsible news agency.

[pravata]

the irony, of course, is that stewart proclaims himself to be merely a comedian (and that seems to be his catch-all way out of criticism-- the "i'm on a comedy channel!" defense), but he's positioning himself as a serious news and media watchdog voice.  at some point he might have to put his money where his mouth is and do some real investigative journalism of his own.

Not a defense, it's a fact. He makes not bones about it either.  His entire schtick is making fun of people.  It's all it is.  Of course, he's also articulate, intelligent, passionate, and has a platform.   He's not "positioning" himself as "serious" at all. 

[jonbloozy]

Few people form their opinion on what Stewart says.  As has been proven in many surveys, the people who watch the Daily Show already know the news, otherwise the jokes wouldn't make sense.

I hope that's true.  Maybe I'm cynical, but I think there's a big ol' chunk of the general populace that doesn't follow the news closely.  My brother, Sunflower Lovechild, is a bright guy, but will bring up the highlights of the Daily Show to prove how bad Republicans are.  While I wouldn't dream of defending a lot of these crooks, I'm forced to point out to him that you shouldn't judge the whole group by just a few.

[jonbloozy]

The difference is that Stewart makes no bones that his show is left-leaning entertainment. Fox actually believes that they're a responsible news agency.

Very good point.

[pravata]

I hope that's true.  Maybe I'm cynical, but I think there's a big ol' chunk of the general populace that doesn't follow the news closely.  My brother, Sunflower Lovechild, is a bright guy, but will bring up the highlights of the Daily Show to prove how bad Republicans are.  While I wouldn't dream of defending a lot of these crooks, I'm forced to point out to him that you shouldn't judge the whole group by just a few.

In reality, the Daily Show has a relatively small audience, so the big chunk isnt their audience.  The people who do watch get their real news elsewhere.  These are not low information people.  They know whats going on and they know they want to laugh at it.

[JaneDoe]

My brother, Sunflower Lovechild,

What was your mother thinking smoking?

[Rebel Jew]

Not a defense, it's a fact. He makes not bones about it either.  His entire schtick is making fun of people.  It's all it is.  Of course, he's also articulate, intelligent, passionate, and has a platform.   He's not "positioning" himself as "serious" at all. 

that channel, and especially his block, has been moving in a political direction for a long time, and is now a serious voice for the kind of left-leaning, college educated, dually news-addicted/news-weary crowd spoken of here.  yeah, they're into making people laugh, and politics is funny because it takes itself so seriously, but the day has long passed when stewart was merely a comedian on a comedy channel making fun of shit.

[pravata]

that channel, and especially his block, has been moving in a political direction for a long time, and is now a serious voice for the kind of left-leaning, college educated, dually news-addicted/news-weary crowd spoken of here.  yeah, they're into making people laugh, and politics is funny because it takes itself so seriously, but the day has long passed when stewart was merely a comedian on a comedy channel making fun of shit.

I think that people are trying to make him something more.  He's passionate but his basic premise is comedy, nothing more as he has stated many times.  Last night being the latest.  I think he's obviously left of center, is that an issue?  The funny has skewed right lately, he didnt do that.

[jonbloozy]

What was your mother thinking smoking?

Names have been changed to protect the innocent flower-children

[Rebel Jew]

I think that people are trying to make him something more.  He's passionate but his basic premise is comedy, nothing more as he has stated many times.  Last night being the latest.  I think he's obviously left of center, is that an issue?  The funny has skewed right lately, he didnt do that.

he's funny, but his bits more and more have an underlying and implied political opinion behind them.  whatever his politics are, there's more to what he's going after than just comedy.  i think, for instance, there's a big difference between being a guy who makes fun of the inanity of media and a guy who is a media watchdog.

i remember one of the earliest jokes of that show back when kilborn was the host.  it went something like "bob dole today, when asked by a reporter, said he was going to celebrate his birthday by having dinner with his family and eating (some big country style dinner with country style names for food).  he then said he was going to spend the next week trying to coax a decent bowel movement."

there's a huge difference between that style of humor and what stewart does.  obviously the host is different, but i think it goes deeper into what stewart's show is trying to accomplish.

[Noe]

Did you watch the interview yet? It doesn't sound like it.

Jon Stewart is in this for ratings by doing what he does best.  I don't need to know anything else but that.

[pravata]

he's funny, but his bits more and more have an underlying and implied political opinion behind them.  i think, for instance, there's a big difference between being a guy who makes fun of the inanity of media and a guy who is a media watchdog.

i remember one of the earliest jokes of that show back when kilborn was the host.  it went something like "bob dole today, when asked by a reporter, said he was going to celebrate his birthday by having dinner with his family and eating (some big country style dinner with country style names for food).  he then said he was going to spend the next week trying to coax a decent bowel movement."

there's a huge difference between that style of humor and what stewart does.  obviously the host is different, but i think it goes deeper into what stewart's show is trying to accomplish.

One of the subtext of his take down of the Cross Fire show and Tucker Carlson was that he was pissed off that he had to call them on their bullshit and no one else would.  But, once he said something, their format was unsustainable.  It was just too obvious that they were counterproductive.   If he's a media watch dog, he's certainly a reluctant one.

[Noe]

Not Mr Stewart, Mrs Stewart, his 75 year old mom apparently.  But she has no excuse either since her other son is in the business.  But fair enough, tough luck for the old woman for believing what she hears on TV.  There's wolves out there and if you're too slow you get eaten.

That is true and Stewart going after these guys is then a personal issue because he has to admit his Mother did something we would all be really pissed about and really we would also tell our Mom "why did you listen to guys on television!?!?"

Stewart's real point was the same we make about sports writers, don't pretend you're an expert on something that you're not. 

Yes, and if this is all we're talking about here, I said I was cool about it.  But those jackals he's going after... ahum... they're in the same glass house as he is.

[pravata]

That is true and Stewart going after these guys is then a personal issue because he has to admit his Mother did something we would all be really pissed about and really we would also tell our Mom "why did you listen to guys on television!?!?"


Yes, and if this is all we're talking about here, I said I was cool about it.  But those jackals he's going after... ahum... they're in the same glass house as he is.

He wanted Santilli, who wouldn't bite.  Apparently he hit a nerve because this is turning into a big story.  A story that no other "legitimate" news source would touch.  And if Stewart is a jackal, he's one of the shy ones who slinks in after the others have had their fill.  Truthfully, if anyone looks to Stewart for real news they are as misguided as the people who look to CNBC for financial news.   The problem is that CNBC pretends to be the experts, Stewart never has.   His viewers realize he is not a primary source of news.  Samantha Bee is another story altogether.

[BudGirl]

Samantha Bee is another story altogether.

are you on twitter? 

[pravata]

That is true and Stewart going after these guys is then a personal issue because he has to admit his Mother did something ...

He did.

[jonbloozy]

The funny has skewed right lately, he didnt do that.

I had a rough night. I had a dream that I drank the world's biggest margarita, and I woke up - there was salt around the toilet bowl. That's not good right there. Thank goodness I didn't eat the worm at the bottom, I'll tell you that right now.

 

[pravata]

are you on twitter? 

Me?  I don't have the correct amount of pith for that format.

[Noe]

I hope that's true.  Maybe I'm cynical, but I think there's a big ol' chunk of the general populace that doesn't follow the news closely.  My brother, Sunflower Lovechild, is a bright guy, but will bring up the highlights of the Daily Show to prove how bad Republicans are.  While I wouldn't dream of defending a lot of these crooks, I'm forced to point out to him that you shouldn't judge the whole group by just a few.

DING, DING, DING.  Going after a few guys who are financial expurts (or so they claim) who then caused his mum to lose her shirt (pension) is ironic given they are in the same business as her son, they run a show that elicits ratings so they can stay on the air.  Imagine if you will, you go to see your everyday run of the mill financial advisor and he starts to jump on the desk, rants and raves and tells you "buy, buy, buy!".  You'd not hestitate to walk right out of the room and say to yourself "I'm never coming in here again... that guys is nuts and I want some sound financial advise, not some schtick!".  That same thing can happen with a simple flick of a remote.  Turn. Them. Off.  Seems what Stewart wants is to do the remote switch for you because he's admitting some of us can't do it and we will rush right out and do what these modern day PT Barnums tell us to do.

And thus PT Barnum was right.  We need protection from ourselves.

If some guy rants and raves on the air and screams into a camera, it sells apparently!  It's one step up from the shamwow guy, but at least he isn't pretending that he's not out to make a buck!  So Jon Stewart exposed these clowns for being stupid.  Big deal, anyone could've told him that without going through this whole thing.  Now I find out that this is Stewart exacting some revenge for his mum.  Now it makes much more sense and now all I am is a voyeur to a personal fight.

I feel dirty and need to go take a shower.

[matadorph]

Noe, why won't you just watch the gosh darn interview? Bloviating about it without actually having watched it makes you sound like, um, a doucheborough.

Cmon, man. You are better than this.

[BudGirl]

Me?  I don't have the correct amount of pith for that format.

she did a segment on twitter and some other websites. 

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=219517&title=intro-harold-varmus-is-here

[Noe]

He wanted Santilli, who wouldn't bite.  Apparently he hit a nerve because this is turning into a big story.  A story that no other "legitimate" news source would touch.  And if Stewart is a jackal, he's one of the shy ones who slinks in after the others have had their fill.  Truthfully, if anyone looks to Stewart for real news they are as misguided as the people who look to CNBC for financial news.   The problem is that CNBC pretends to be the experts, Stewart never has.   His viewers realize he is not a primary source of news.  Samantha Bee is another story altogether.

A story?  I doubt it, it's about one member of the fraternity going after another that does the same thing he does: create a show that will make money for their broadcast network.  If it don't sell, it won't air.  Stewart's niche is comedy, CNBC is financial expertise.  They are trying to be as creative in presentation as can be and their is no doubting that both have their audience for that very reason.  So they stay on the air because someone is watching them and that creates marketable air time that can be sold to advertisers who see the demographic of who is watching and thus they *pay* good money to the network for the space.  The networks in turn paid the producers of the show good money to keep producing more and more shows.  The producers pay the cast money to keep making them a marketable commodity.  All that applies to both the CNBC schtick financial shows and to Comedy Networks TDN.  Once they have no more play, then they will lose their marketability and thus the show is off the air.  So how do you get people to watch your shows?  The quickest way is to have some angle, some unique gimmick, something that works for you.

And midgets.  Yes, a friends of mine who writes for television shows said that once you run out of ideas, then it's time to resort to midgets to get people to watch.

[Noe]

He wanted Santilli, who wouldn't bite.  Apparently he hit a nerve because this is turning into a big story.  A story that no other "legitimate" news source would touch.  And if Stewart is a jackal, he's one of the shy ones who slinks in after the others have had their fill.  Truthfully, if anyone looks to Stewart for real news they are as misguided as the people who look to CNBC for financial news.   The problem is that CNBC pretends to be the experts, Stewart never has.   His viewers realize he is not a primary source of news.  Samantha Bee is another story altogether.

CNBC pretends to be experts on financial matters?  Go visit a financial advisor and tell me that what CNBC does is anything remotely close to what a guy sitting behind a desk is doing to help you structure a sound financial plan.  Either way, investing money is speculating and some times you lose money and some times you make money.  Unless the guy is holding a gun at your head, you better be well versed what you want to do with your own money based on the advise you get.  The last place anyone should go look for advise is television.  Think about that last statement again and tell me if that isn't a sobering thought that a guy with a television show has that much power over your investment strategies!

Get out of town!

[pravata]

she did a segment on twitter and some other websites. 

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=219517&title=intro-harold-varmus-is-here

here's Sam B,  http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=219519&title=Twitter-Frenzy

[pravata]

CNBC pretends to be experts on financial matters?  Go visit a financial advisor and tell me that what CNBC does is anything remotely close to what a guy sitting behind a desk is doing to help you structure a sound financial plan.  Either way, investing money is speculating and some times you lose money and some times you make money.  Unless the guy is holding a gun at your head, you better be well versed what you want to do with your own money based on the advise you get.  The last place anyone should go look for advise is television.  Think about that last statement again and tell me if that isn't a sobering thought that a guy with a television show has that much power over your investment strategies!

Get out of town!

Yeah they do. 

[Noe]

He did.

Last thing I would do is go on the air and tell everyone how my mother made a stupid mistake that cost her a ton of money.  It's no one business but my own and this whole thing if it is not about ratings boost, then is taking his own mother down along with those idiots at CNBC.  

That is very sad indeed and I wish I was never expose to this personal fight.  Like I said, it's shower time!

[pravata]

Last thing I would do is go on the air and tell everyone how my mother made a stupid mistake that cost her a ton of money.  It's no one business but my own and this whole thing if it is not about ratings boost, then is taking his own mother down along with those idiots at CNBC.  

That is very sad indeed and I wish I was never expose to this personal fight.  Like I said, it's shower time!

Past time.  As you say, it's all about the ratings, why not exploit your family for whatever you can get, right?

[Noe]

Noe, why won't you just watch the gosh darn interview? Bloviating about it without actually having watched it makes you sound like, um, a doucheborough.

Cmon, man. You are better than this.

Again, why should I watch an interview of Stewart doing what he does all the freaking time?  He has a comedy show for goodness sakes, can't you understand he isn't trying to save the world, he's got a good big ol' fish on the hook and he's reeling him in slowly to enjoy every moment of this exposure for his show.

This is nothing serious or inviting to me.  It is the entertainment media doing what they do well to stay on the air.  Why do I need to glorify it?

[Noe]

Yeah they do. 

And thus PT Barnum sleeps well in his grave tonight.

[Noe]

Past time.  As you say, it's all about the ratings, why not exploit your family for whatever you can get, right?

Jon Stewart, if he is as pissed off as you say, can't help but see this fight all the way through now.  And really, I'm late for my shower.

[matadorph]

 Noe, why are you going on and on and on about an interview you haven't watched? Watching it and missing the point is one thing, but you are engaging ins something worse: willful ignorance.

[BudGirl]

here's Sam B,  http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=219519&title=Twitter-Frenzy

sweet man, did you watch what I linked?

[Noe]

Noe, why are you going on and on and on about an interview you haven't watched? Watching it and missing the point is one thing, but you are engaging ins something worse: willful ignorance.

Dude, what is your problem with what I'm saying?  Please be exact.

[HudsonHawk]

I re-read my post.  While it isn't really relevant in this hijacked thread, the bias I'm referring to has to do with his left leg being shorter than his right.  There's nothing wrong with that (it's his show).  Without going too far into Palin WTF territory, it's the same problem I have with Fox News.  Yes, a lot of their stories are accurate, but if you look at which stories they choose to focus on, the bias is much more evident.  

IMO, there's nothing wrong with being liberal.  I personally enjoy the Daily Show, but it irks me when someone (my brother, in this case) chooses to form their opinions based on what Jon Stewart says . . . or Rush Limbaugh for that matter.  You have to look at the source.  

Also, my reference to my "liberal-ass" brother may seem a little insensitive, but he really is a fucking hippy.  There's just no excuse for that.    

So again I ask...what bias?  What do you think Jon Stewart is trying to do other than generate giggles by poking fun at people?

[Noe]

So again I ask...what bias?  What do you think Jon Stewart is trying to do other than generate giggles by poking fun at people?

It is as if no one has ever seen this before!  Good lowered, has no one ever heard of guys like Will Rogers, Bob and Ray, or even.. shudder, Don Imus?

[BudGirl]

BTW, you guys do realize the Astros didn't lose tonight, right?

[Noe]

BTW, you guys do realize the Astros didn't lose tonight, right?

Was it a rainout?

[BudGirl]

nope 2-2 tie.  pence homered and hampton went 4 shutout innings.

[Noe]

nope 2-2 tie.  pence homered and hampton went 4 shutout innings.

Kiss your sister! (not literally, just an expression).

[matadorph]

Dude, what is your problem with what I'm saying?  Please be exact.

That you haven't even watched it! Duh. You're going on and on and on without addressing the content of the interview. Your argument is based on the fact that Jon Stewart has a tv show (like Cramer) and is in it for the ratings. Yeah, and? You have this strange notion that Big Media doesn't have a responsibility to the viewing public, that it's only responsibility is to make money through ratings. Is it not possible for a network such as CNBC to do good, responsible reporting and get good ratings?

[matadorph]

Jon Stewart is in this for ratings by doing what he does best.  I don't need to know anything else but that.

Noe, is there a door in your office that's a portal into Jon Stewart's head?

[Noe]

That you haven't even watched it!

I have been talking about Jon Stewart's show and CNBC's show and how they're both broadcast entertainment.  What do I need to watch to change my view that both are not exactly that?

Duh.

If you want to lower this conversation to this level, I can do it.  You make the call but I ask again, what exactly am I saying about the motif of two shows that needs to be clarified by watching an interview.  Will said interview change the motif of two entertainment venues?

You're going on and on and on without addressing the content of the interview.

Am I going on and on about the interview or the *purpose* of said interview?  Can you find your way through your own desire to have me watch an interview of the same thing Stewart does with his other hundreds of interviews that will change *purpose*?  If so, I will watch to see exactly how this is now 60 minutes and not The Daily Show.

Your argument is based on the fact that Jon Stewart has a tv show (like Cramer) and is in it for the ratings. Yeah, and?

Why make it anything else?  That is the "and"....

You have this strange notion that Big Media doesn't have a responsibility to the viewing public,

So the viewing public, as has been my point thorough (and not a reason for me to watch any interview) is admittedly gulible?  When does personal accountability come into play in all this?  You mind telling me.  Because at some point we will have to draw the line.  How do you feel when you hear that a coffee shop has to tell people that.... oh my goodness... coffee is *HOT* because people are not smart enough to know that if you spill this liquid on yourself... it is going to burn!  See big corporations like McDonalds have a responsibility to the buying public, right?

that it's only responsibility is to make money through ratings. Is it not possible for a network such as CNBC to do good, responsible reporting and get good ratings?

I don't care about CNBC, where did you get the idea that I cared one iota about them or that they should not be ridiculed?  Jon Stewart is going after some low hanging fruit here and in fact, as pravata has provided, it's a personal vendetta.  Good, let them eat themselves alive, why should I care one bit but either.  But my point remains, what sort of viewing public are we out here that we can't go get sound financial advise from a firm that is reputable and accountable?  Apparently we have members of our own society that can't help but spill hot coffee all over themselves.  And we think this is cool?

[Noe]

Noe, is there a door in your office that's a portal into Jon Stewart's head?

No, but do I need to have it tatooed on my forehead that he's in the entertainment business to opine that he's doing exactly what he's paid to do in his show?  And do I further need to know that he has picked a very good topic that resonates with everyone right now due to the recession (and he has a personal stake in as well because of his mother).  People are afraid right now about this economy and the last thing that anyone wants to hear is how these guys like those running Stanford or others got off clear because a media outlet didn't hit them with hardballs.  Is it really the fault of the media or the do we share some amount of responsibility for the society we set up for ourselves?  Our credit debt didn't come at us because big media didn't do it's job to warn us.  We did this to ourselves because we all thought this was never going to come home to roost and now we all have to work hard to make it right.  Tar and feathering the media that you want to be your vanguard is an excuse to me.  IMHO of course.

So what in that comedic interview is going to change any of that opinion and why should I care otherwise?

[matadorph]

The last place anyone should go look for advise is television.  Think about that last statement again and tell me if that isn't a sobering thought that a guy with a television show has that much power over your investment strategies!

I agree with this, but Stewart made a very salient point about the "two markets" and how CNBC was a cheerleader for the one (mad money now!) at the expense of the other (long-term, responsible investing). The average American worker has been conditioned to believe unquestionably in the stock market over the long-term through what they thought to be low-risk investments in their IRAs and 401ks. In the meantime, the financial institutions and their cheerleaders were creating instruments that greatly increased risks to everyone participating in the market and caused the responsible, long-term investors to get fucked through no fault of their own (or even the companies they were invested in).

[MusicMan]

The average American worker has been conditioned to believe unquestionably in the stock market over the long-term through what they thought to be low-risk investments in their IRAs and 401ks.

What you call "conditioning", I call a basic lack of education about personal finances.

When I hear about people supposedly a year away from retirement losing practically all of their retirement savings?  I'm saddened, but not just for their losses - it's for their ignorance in having so much money tied up in stocks so close to retirement.  That's just damn foolish.

[Noe]

I agree with this, but Stewart made a very salient point about the "two markets" and how CNBC was a cheerleader for the one (mad money now!) at the expense of the other (long-term, responsible investing).

If CNBC holds a gun to your head, then we got a story.   Again, my point thoroughout.

The average American worker has been conditioned to believe unquestionably in the stock market over the long-term through what they thought to be low-risk investments in their IRAs and 401ks.

If anyone ever guarantees an investment, run away fast.  Do you understand that investment is not meant to be guarateed growth and no-risk, no-loss ventures.  There are plenty of ways an economy can crash and if you want a guarantee, then hide your money under your bed and then sleep with a shotgun just to be sure no one gets to your money.

In the meantime, the financial institutions and their cheerleaders were creating instruments that greatly increased risks to everyone participating in the market and caused the responsible, long-term investors to get fucked through no fault of their own (or even the companies they were invested in).

How exactly did someone manage to come into your investment and make it all go away.  Please explain to me how that happened in a speculation endeavor.

[Noe]

What you call "conditioning", I call a basic lack of education about personal finances.

When I hear about people supposedly a year away from retirement losing practically all of their retirement savings?  I'm saddened, but not just for their losses - it's for their ignorance in having so much money tied up in stocks so close to retirement.  That's just damn foolish.

This is what is shocking to me how disassociated people really claim to be with their investments.  Do people really believe investment means no-risk, no-loss?

[matadorph]

I have been talking about Jon Stewart's show and CNBC's show and how they're both broadcast entertainment.  What do I need to watch to change my view that both are not exactly that?

They're both on TV, so they're both equally worthless? Just because TDS is a comedy show in the business of entertaining its audience doesn't mean it can't address serious topics through satire.

If you want to lower this conversation to this level, I can do it.  You make the call but I ask again, what exactly am I saying about the motif of two shows that needs to be clarified by watching an interview.  Will said interview change the motif of two entertainment venues?

You're not really saying anything of merit. Yes, Noe, they're both TV shows, and TV is about ratings. I think we've all established that.

Am I going on and on about the interview or the *purpose* of said interview?  Can you find your way through your own desire to have me watch an interview of the same thing Stewart does with his other hundreds of interviews that will change *purpose*?  If so, I will watch to see exactly how this is now 60 minutes and not The Daily Show.

If you actually watched it, you'd realize that the interview was about as serious in content as any interview you'll see on 60 Minutes.

[Noe]

They're both on TV, so they're both equally worthless?

Entertainment is not worthless, it is an escape, just like sports.  If we elevate entertainment beyond that level we start to deviate from what it is intended to be.  In the same way you don't want your doctor to perform surgery while doing a standup comedy routine, why should you expect an entertainment vehicle to be a substitute for sound financial advise?

Just because TDS is a comedy show in the business of entertaining its audience doesn't mean it can't address serious topics through satire.

Again, low hanging fruit.  If you want to elevate TDS, go right ahead and do so.  You're taking them too seriously in my own opinion and I don't need an interview to tell me otherwise.  If Jon Stewart wants you to take him seriously, then he's doing well by you and by me he's confusing me.  I thought he was doing a comedy show.

You're not really saying anything of merit. Yes, Noe, they're both TV shows, and TV is about ratings. I think we've all established that.

So it's funny and that is that.  Why all the other stuff?  My other point is that it is sad that there are perhaps some out there that think that a media outlet has been somehow villianized.  To me, the viewing public has been just as ridiculed by all this if it is intended to be a serious indictment of CNBC.  Really, CNBC has that much power over our lives?  I don't happen to think so, so why should I care about a comedy show taking some great shots at the hypocrisy of a television venue.  Heck, I'd love for him to take on Oprah next just so I can get even more laughs at how seriously people take what she says in her show too.  My goodness, that would be hoot!

If you actually watched it, you'd realize that the interview was about as serious in content as any interview you'll see on 60 Minutes.

Next thing you'll tell me that watching Spongebob Squarepants on Nickelodeon will help me understand the social morays of the less fortunate if I really just watch that show more often for the value it brings to the table.  So tell me, in this serious content, did Stewart at any time tell his audience "You people need to be very careful and very involved in what you do with your investments.  See, we can only give the power to these types of shows if we do not get involved and informed about our money.  You have the power.  Good night and God Bless and sleep tight, I'm on the wall for you tonight".

[MusicMan]

Noe, why do grown men without children still watch Spongebob?

[Noe]

Noe, why do grown men without children still watch Spongebob?

I think it's seriously showing me how to have tolerance for purple starfish.

[MusicMan]

Funny.  The Internet shows me how to have tolerance for chocolate starfish.

[jonbloozy]

So again I ask...what bias?  What do you think Jon Stewart is trying to do other than generate giggles by poking fun at people?

By his left leg being shorter than the right, I'm trying to say he tends to lean to the left.  Again, not necessarily relevant (vodka will do that, see my idiotic question to BudGirl the same night).  Also, see Joey's post, he makes a valid point.

[jonbloozy]

Funny.  The Internet shows me how to have tolerance for chocolate starfish.

My Larry the Cable Guy quote was just for you, baby.

[BudGirl]

By his left leg being shorter than the right, I'm trying to say he tends to lean to the left.  Again, not necessarily relevant (vodka will do that, see my idiotic question to BudGirl the same night).  Also, see Joey's post, he makes a valid point.

You asked me a question?  Did I answer it?

[HudsonHawk]

By his left leg being shorter than the right, I'm trying to say he tends to lean to the left.

He leans to the funny, whether that's left, right, or straight down the middle.  On a side note, I "dress" to the left, in case anyone was wondering.

[Ebby Calvin]

Apparently what the Padres, Blue Jays, Rockies and Astros have in common is that Cramer is a stammering buffoon and Stewart is a ratings-hocking arsehole.
I would just like to say that I have very high hopes for this thread.  I mean, I know it's only seven pages long so far, but it has real potential.

Just think what will happen when Bristol Palin's broken engagement gets mentioned in a thread like this.

[UpTooLate]

Apparently what the Padres, Blue Jays, Rockies and Astros have in common is that Cramer is a stammering buffoon and Stewart is a ratings-hocking arsehole.
I would just like to say that I have very high hopes for this thread.  I mean, I know it's only seven pages long so far, but it has real potential.

Just think what will happen when Bristol Palin's broken engagement gets mentioned in a thread like this.

Nominated

[Limey]

And that criticism was what?  Inaccuracy?  Line 'em up and shoot them all.  You won't have anyone left in the media business including Stewart.  Let me say it again... media is a business, not a stinking public service.  If you rely on the media for making your own decision, you deserve whatever you get in terms of stupid outcomes, and again, that includes Stewart!

The media are given certain constitutional protections in order to act as the canaries in the coal mine.  When they eschew the truth in favour of ratings, they are abdicating their duty as the 4th estate.  That's why they deserve to get pinged by Stewart, who is hosting an entertainment show.  The irony being that Stewart does a better job of journalism than many of the so-called serious journalistic outlets.

[Outlawscotty]

The media are given certain constitutional protections in order to act as the canaries in the coal mine.  When they eschew the truth in favour of ratings, they are abdicating their duty as the 4th estate.  That's why they deserve to get pinged by Stewart, who is hosting an entertainment show.  The irony being that Stewart does a better job of journalism than many of the so-called serious journalistic outlets.

Present company and Keith Olberman excepted, of course.

[Noe]

The media are given certain constitutional protections in order to act as the canaries in the coal mine.  When they eschew the truth in favour of ratings, they are abdicating their duty as the 4th estate.  That's why they deserve to get pinged by Stewart, who is hosting an entertainment show.  The irony being that Stewart does a better job of journalism than many of the so-called serious journalistic outlets.

To futher the irony: I am surprised that many of us are shocked and dismayed that the media information (re: news) outlets growing in the cable enabled market has gone the way of... oh my gosh... entertainment!  Gone are the days of Uncle Walt delivery the sobering news reports from Vietnam (because he did not have to compete with many other outlets, he had only two others to worry about and he did the news delivery the best!). During the late seventies and early eighties though, there was a massive study made about how people viewership of television news had it's perception. Guess what, rated at the top of the list of what people wanted from the news was "Weather forecast", followed by "Sports", followed by "Entertainment News" and then the headlines of the day... and not just "Man rescues cat in tree" news, but gory detail news "Man shots neighbor over an adulterous affair".  So as news on television evolved, it reflected what we actually wanted.  When you add 24/7 to the equation, what do you think you're going to get?

Yes, more the same sensationalistic, entertainment bent type of delivery and approach to news delivery.  We're now in the aughts reaping what we sow as news watchers and now we're appalled at where they've gone with our "journalism"?  We can stand here and applaud those who go after the type of news we get nowadays, whether it is news broadcast or news entertainment shows such as Cramer's financial news show or Oprah or Hannidy (sp?) and Combs or Tucker Carlson or whoever dares to put on a news/entertainment broadcast.  There is a reason those shows are on the air and we need only to look at the mirror to realize we asked for this, even if now we are appalled at the lack of integrity of it all.  God bless Jon Stewart as he continues to call B.S. on each and every one of these shows that we as the American viewing public helped prop up with our viewership over the last few decades.  Maybe together with Stewart we can all roll back the tide and get back to Uncle Walt delivers the news 24/7.  And it will have been a true entertainment venue that lead us all back too!  That is irony.

"Are you not entertained?"

[Rebel Jew]

To futher the irony: I am surprised that many of us are shocked and dismayed that the media information (re: news) outlets growing in the cable enabled market has gone the way of... oh my gosh... entertainment!  Gone are the days of Uncle Walt delivery the sobering news reports from Vietnam (because he did not have to compete with many other outlets, he had only two others to worry about and he did the news delivery the best!). During the late seventies and early eighties though, there was a massive study made about how people viewership of television news had it's perception. Guess what, rated at the top of the list of what people wanted from the news was "Weather forecast", followed by "Sports", followed by "Entertainment News" and then the headlines of the day... and not just "Man rescues cat in tree" news, but gory detail news "Man shots neighbor over an adulterous affair".  So as news on television evolved, it reflected what we actually wanted.  When you add 24/7 to the equation, what do you think you're going to get?

Yes, more the same sensationalistic, entertainment bent type of delivery and approach to news delivery.  We're now in the aughts reaping what we sow as news watchers and now we're appalled at where they've gone with our "journalism"?  We can stand here and applaud those who go after the type of news we get nowadays, whether it is news broadcast or news entertainment shows such as Cramer's financial news show or Oprah or Hannidy (sp?) and Combs or Tucker Carlson or whoever dares to put on a news/entertainment broadcast.  There is a reason those shows are on the air and we need only to look at the mirror to realize we asked for this, even if now we are appalled at the lack of integrity of it all.  God bless Jon Stewart as he continues to call B.S. on each and every one of these shows that we as the American viewing public helped prop up with our viewership over the last few decades.  Maybe together with Stewart we can all roll back the tide and get back to Uncle Walt delivers the news 24/7.  And it will have been a true entertainment venue that lead us all back too!  That is irony.

"Are you not entertained?"

noe, I agree with everything you've said in this thread, but don't you think that there are certain underlying ideas that define entertainment to large homogeneous groups?  what i mean is, cnbc and their army of raving halloween costume stockbrokers, appeals mostly to people who are themselves in business in some way, or who hold investments.  they probably don't watch it because they think the cnbc personalities are financial wizards and they're hanging on their every word for money advice, they watch it because they're really into business and cnbc is a channel that talks about business, reports on business, and basically licks the feet of business 24/7.  so what i'm saying is that cnbc does not exist as a source for concrete financial info or expertise, it exists as a distributor, portrayer, and every so often creator of the financial culture, just as forbes magazine, the wsj, etc. before it.  i don't think the power of culture can be as understated as you seem to suggest when it comes to its ability to shape reality.    i think the underlying cultural norms of cnbc say a lot more about its impact than any explicit piece of financial advice it's ever given or piece of news it's ever reported.

[Noe]

noe, I agree with everything you've said in this thread, but don't you think that there are certain underlying ideas that define entertainment to large homogeneous groups?  what i mean is, cnbc and their army of raving halloween costume stockbrokers, appeals mostly to people who are themselves in business in some way, or who hold investments.  they probably don't watch it because they think the cnbc personalities are financial wizards and they're hanging on their every word for money advice, they watch it because they're really into business and cnbc is a channel that talks about business, reports on business, and basically licks the feet of business 24/7.  so what i'm saying is that cnbc does not exist as a source for concrete financial info or expertise, it exists as a distributor, portrayer, and every so often creator of the financial culture, just as forbes magazine, the wsj, etc. before it.  i don't think the power of culture can be as understated as you seem to suggest when it comes to its ability to shape reality.    i think the underlying cultural norms of cnbc say a lot more about its impact than any explicit piece of financial advice it's ever given or piece of news it's ever reported.

I think you're correct.  What you've said is much more in tune with what perhaps is the niche that CNBC is trying to carve.  The thing about it is, as perhaps a residual effect, investors, or moreso the novice investor who thinks a simple mastery of day-trader techniques will get you that infomercial-like success.  Same goes with real estate and the flip-this-house genre of newstainment.  People who are not well versed in the nuances (and it's always the nuances that get you, not the high-level knowledge), tend to make huge mistakes.  Same way I would never think I can build a car from scratch watching the Clack Brothers explain a short block, same should go for investment and other high dollar risk (like real estate speculating).  If I built a car and ever took out for a test drive, believe you me it would not be a safe endeavor for me or anybody else unfortunate enough to be on the same road as me.  There will be death and dismemberment when all is said and done.  But see, I know that about myself so I don't even try.  So it's one thing to talk about the offering on cable, it is another thing to talk about how the audience processes the same.

Money or the hope of making lots-o-money has a strange effect on people.

[Rebel Jew]

I think you're correct.  What you've said is much more in tune with what perhaps is the niche that CNBC is trying to carve.  The thing about it is, as perhaps a residual effect, investors, or moreso the novice investor who thinks a simple mastery of day-trader techniques will get you that infomercial-like success.  Same goes with real estate and the flip-this-house genre of newstainment.  People who are not well versed in the nuances (and it's always the nuances that get you, not the high-level knowledge), tend to make huge mistakes.  Same way I would never think I can build a car from scratch watching the Clack Brothers explain a short block, same should go for investment and other high dollar risk (like real estate speculating).  If I built a car and ever took out for a test drive, believe you me it would not be a safe endeavor for me or anybody else unfortunate enough to be on the same road as me.  There will be death and dismemberment when all is said and done.  But see, I know that about myself so I don't even try.  So it's one thing to talk about the offering on cable, it is another thing to talk about how the audience processes the same.

Money or the hope of making lots-o-money has a strange effect on people.

i think it's like what espn has done to/for sports.  obviously cnbc will likely never have the influence over wall street that espn has over the major pro sports leagues, but with espn the culture of sports has more or less eclipsed the sports themselves.  the recent and ongoing story of the nfl network getting shafted by basically all the major cable companies is just stunning to me about what it says about who wields the power in the entertainment world.  espn has like, what four, five of its channels on the basic cable tier, a bunch of others on the sports tiers, and the original espn channel charges a lot more to carry than any other cable channel (and certainly a lot more than what nfl network wanted to cahrge).  espn has its own restaurants, its own magazine, one of the most read sites on the web, one of the most listened to radio networks, etc.  they don't have the direct power to get stadiums built and other civic projects done, and they can't sell espn merchandise to any great success, but aside from that they are way more powerful than the nfl even though their presumed purpose is to merely report and comment on sports like the nfl.  the nfl is arguably the most popular entertainment entity in the united states, yet the 24-7 culture created by the sport has eclipsed what the sport itself can accomplish on only 20 some-odd weekends.

[Jose Cruz III]

Apparently what the Padres, Blue Jays, Rockies and Astros have in common is that Cramer is a stammering buffoon and Stewart is a ratings-hocking arsehole.
I would just like to say that I have very high hopes for this thread.  I mean, I know it's only seven pages long so far, but it has real potential.

Just think what will happen when Bristol Palin's broken engagement gets mentioned in a thread like this.

Bristol Palin's wedding has been called off?

[Bench]

Noe, is there a place for "journalism" in our modern society? 

[Noe]

Noe, is there a place for "journalism" in our modern society? 

I am holding out hope that there is.  One must always have hope.  And the internet, but can you believe everything you read?