Jon Stewart skewered CNN Oct. 12, 2009 (rebroadcast Oct. 22, 2009) although, to be fair, he could have done the same to MSNBC, FOX, or, quite frankly, every news organization on TV. Perhaps the best, and most illustrative, clip comes near the end (around the 8 min. mark), when a CNN anchor asks the reporter if there is any way to check the numbers. The reporter's obvious surprise at even being asked such a question tells it all. Reporting has sunk so low that, today, it doesn't even occur to anchors or reporters that when someone they are interviewing throws out a statistic or says "the American people know" that, just maybe, they should check the facts.
Stewart Skewers CNN
Showing posts with label Jon Stewart. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jon Stewart. Show all posts
Friday, October 23, 2009
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Jon Stewart - Second Home Run - Wall Street Again
After skewering the Democrats, Stewart turned his attention to Wall Street's latest method for making billions: high frequency trading. No doubt the Wall Street apologists will insist that these oomputer programs enhance the financial system but this is nothing but monopoly with real money and no assets. Nothing of value gets created.
High Frequency Trading
High Frequency Trading
Jon Stewart Does it Again - On Our Pissant Democratic Majority
Stewart's September 30, 2009 broadcast hit two home runs right off the top. First, he skewers the Democratic Party, rightly so, for its inability to govern even with control of both houses and a super majority in the Senate.
On the DemocratÃc Party's Inability to Govern
And more:
How the Democratic Party Thinks
I've said it before: the Republican Party is a more effective Party than the Democratic Party and has been for almost 40 years now. Whether they are in the minority or the majority, whether there is a Republican or Democratic President, Republicans act as if they were in the majority. They don't care if they won the White House with the help of the Supreme Court. They don't care if they are, theoretically, "out in the wilderness". They believe in their principles and use every weapon at their disposal, no matter how outrageous, to achieve their ends.
The Democrats, however, ever since Jimmy Carter, have acted like scared rabbits. They are afraid of their shadows, afraid of being called "liberal" or "partisan". Even when they win, they act like losers.
It's even to drive a liberal insane. What do we have to do to elect people who actually will do what we want them to do?
On the DemocratÃc Party's Inability to Govern
And more:
How the Democratic Party Thinks
I've said it before: the Republican Party is a more effective Party than the Democratic Party and has been for almost 40 years now. Whether they are in the minority or the majority, whether there is a Republican or Democratic President, Republicans act as if they were in the majority. They don't care if they won the White House with the help of the Supreme Court. They don't care if they are, theoretically, "out in the wilderness". They believe in their principles and use every weapon at their disposal, no matter how outrageous, to achieve their ends.
The Democrats, however, ever since Jimmy Carter, have acted like scared rabbits. They are afraid of their shadows, afraid of being called "liberal" or "partisan". Even when they win, they act like losers.
It's even to drive a liberal insane. What do we have to do to elect people who actually will do what we want them to do?
Friday, March 13, 2009
Jon Stewart vs. Jim Cramer: Takedown Part II
The Daily Show's Mar. 4, 2009 takedown of CNBC was brilliant, biting, and funny.
Stewart's interview with Jim Cramer on Mar. 12, 2009 was one of the most serious and substantive analysis (if not the most) of the purpose of the CNBC network that I have ever seen.
Jim Cramer was way, way, way out of his league.
Jim Cramer Extended Interview
First, Cramer assumed that he was the only target. Second, he completely failed to understand Stewart's fundamental issue: that CNBC was not giving value to the people who invest in pension funds and 401Ks, that it was, rather, a shill for Wall Street. Worse, it misrepresents itself as being for the former. Cramer simply did not get it.
This was a serious and often uncomfortable interview by Stewart, but it showed just how feckless the MSM (and the blogosphere for that matter) has been when it comes to business reporting.
Stewart's interview with Jim Cramer on Mar. 12, 2009 was one of the most serious and substantive analysis (if not the most) of the purpose of the CNBC network that I have ever seen.
Jim Cramer was way, way, way out of his league.
Jim Cramer Extended Interview
First, Cramer assumed that he was the only target. Second, he completely failed to understand Stewart's fundamental issue: that CNBC was not giving value to the people who invest in pension funds and 401Ks, that it was, rather, a shill for Wall Street. Worse, it misrepresents itself as being for the former. Cramer simply did not get it.
This was a serious and often uncomfortable interview by Stewart, but it showed just how feckless the MSM (and the blogosphere for that matter) has been when it comes to business reporting.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Jon Stewart - The Daily Show on Mar. 4, 2009 - Roasts CNBC (incl. Rick Santelli & Jim Cramer)
The Daily Show keeps getting better. Having a liberal in the White House has in no way affected its quality.
Last night's roundly deserved roast of CNBC's coverage of the stock market showed TDS at its best: a stinging montage of CNBC prognostications showing just how often, and consistently, wrong its predictions have been.
I especially enjoyed the sequences that focused on Jim Cramer. I've been watching Cramer for a couple of months now and the one constant is his inconstancy. His advice varies almost daily and rarely holds up over the long haul. (Only a few months ago, he declared Bank of America, Well Fargo, and JP Morgan Chase to be among the 5 "gold standard" banks.) Yes, I know he was a successful hedge fund manager but as such he could and did trade daily, probably almost every minute. Most of the people who watch him can't do that. He's a lot of fun to watch, but unless you have money to burn and want to buy and sell stocks all day, he's not going to help you.
The Mar. 4, 2009 montage was just one of many that Stewart's staff has put together over the past year. One recent montage I recall contrasted statements by Gibbs (Obama's press secretary) with those from prior press secretaries. Not a word's worth of difference. It takes a lot of skill and research to put together these montages. You must realize that there is something worth looking for, then locate the sound bites or videos that will support your thesis. Google and the other search engines help, but anybody who's used them for serious research knows just how hard it can be to find just what you need.
So, yes, I adore Stewart. But his staff deserve special credit for providing the material. Give Thain's bonus to them.
Last night's roundly deserved roast of CNBC's coverage of the stock market showed TDS at its best: a stinging montage of CNBC prognostications showing just how often, and consistently, wrong its predictions have been.
I especially enjoyed the sequences that focused on Jim Cramer. I've been watching Cramer for a couple of months now and the one constant is his inconstancy. His advice varies almost daily and rarely holds up over the long haul. (Only a few months ago, he declared Bank of America, Well Fargo, and JP Morgan Chase to be among the 5 "gold standard" banks.) Yes, I know he was a successful hedge fund manager but as such he could and did trade daily, probably almost every minute. Most of the people who watch him can't do that. He's a lot of fun to watch, but unless you have money to burn and want to buy and sell stocks all day, he's not going to help you.
The Mar. 4, 2009 montage was just one of many that Stewart's staff has put together over the past year. One recent montage I recall contrasted statements by Gibbs (Obama's press secretary) with those from prior press secretaries. Not a word's worth of difference. It takes a lot of skill and research to put together these montages. You must realize that there is something worth looking for, then locate the sound bites or videos that will support your thesis. Google and the other search engines help, but anybody who's used them for serious research knows just how hard it can be to find just what you need.
So, yes, I adore Stewart. But his staff deserve special credit for providing the material. Give Thain's bonus to them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
