Cramer Still Bitter Towards Stewart

Posted by jrosenhouse on May 14, 2009
(15)
More »

You remember the story, don’t you? On The Daily Show, Jon Stewart did a segment showing how thoroughly inept CNBC had been in the build up to the big recession. The segment was very funny and painfully true, which led to it getting a lot of play. One small piece of the segment dealt with Jim Cramer, who bombastically assured his viewers that Bear Sterns was fine just days before it collapsed completely.

Cramer then decided that this was all about him and started trash-talking Stewart in various media outlets. Initially he also tried to deny some of his earlier statements, but Stewart gleefully nailed him.

This led to Cramer appearing on Stewart’s show. The result?

Stewart humiliated him.

Cramer has been licking his wounds ever since. And browsing through this Q and A with Time magazine suggests that he is still not over it.

Do you regret going on The Daily Show in the first place? –John Puterbaugh, Dekalb, Ill.

No one wants to suffer a beat-down. No one wants to be humiliated or embarrassed. I was shocked at [host Jon Stewart's] behavior. I wish he knew about my background, and I wish he knew about a lot of things that I had done, because I think he would’ve thanked me instead of attacked me.

You seemed to take Stewart’s criticism personally, but he was really making a larger point about the failures of CNBC and other financial outlets. Do you think CNBC did a good job anticipating and reporting on the financial meltdown? –Mark Sutter, Detroit

I think CNBC’s done a remarkable job, and I think the attack on CNBC and the attacks on me were gravely misplaced. It was rather remarkable in that it was so clear that his goal was to just destroy me. One day he’ll answer for it.

Poor guy. That last line is a bit ominous.

Actually, the rest of the Q and A has some interesting moments as well. Go have a look!

(15)
More »

Comments

  1. #1 Tyler DiPietro
    May 14, 2009

    What an ego-gloried dickhole Cramer must be. To my recollection he was only in one clip in an entire montage of CNBC stupidity, yet he still thinks that Stewarts was just to attack him.

    Fucking jackass, I hope he gets thrown off the air.

  2. #2 peter
    May 14, 2009

    I just wish he would do what he told stewart he would do. right at the end he agreed (to try) to do better.

    here’s hoping he does.

  3. #3 Spartan
    May 14, 2009

    To my recollection he was only in one clip in an entire montage of CNBC stupidity,

    Actually, Cramer was the guest on the Daily Show after those initial clips and rightly had his head handed to him.

  4. #4 Badger3k
    May 15, 2009

    Well, Cramer actually gave Stewart and the Daily Show writers his own head, once they dug it out of his butt. His “defense” (or maybe “explanation”, although it deserved neither term) was pitiful and funny to watch.

  5. #5 Erik 12345
    May 18, 2009

    Cramer just doesn’t know when to stop digging. If he hadn’t gone on a small media tour after the first criticism, he would have gotten away with being laughed at for a few minutes. The more he defends himself, the more he brings attention to Stewart’s perfectly reasonable serious criticism and the funny jokes at his expense.

  6. #6 Herm
    May 22, 2009

    I’m curious as to what this has to do with “the dispute between evolution and creationism”? Does accepting the scientific consensus on the origins of biological diversity compel one to take either Cramer or Stewart’s side in this argument? As an evolutionary biologist I would think this would be important for me to know.

  7. #7 Ed
    May 22, 2009

    His appearance on Stewart was priceless. To see a shill like him appear on a show where he can’t act like a monkey and do nothing for his viewers was priceless. When Stewart showed that video of him where he was talking seriously about finance to an interviewer you could see how greatly it contrasted with his on-air personality. It brilliantly displayed how he daily betrays his viewers on his CNBC show. He has real knowledge and chooses not to share it just so people will pour money into the market. What ring of hell does that put you in?

  8. #8 Ed
    May 22, 2009

    His appearance on Stewart was priceless. To see a hack like him appear on a show where he can’t act like a monkey and do nothing for his viewers was priceless. When Stewart showed that video of him where he was talking seriously about finance to an interviewer you could see how greatly it contrasted with his on-air personality. It brilliantly displayed how he daily betrays his viewers on his CNBC show. He has real knowledge and chooses not to share it just so people will pour money into the market. What ring of hell does that put you in?

  9. #9 Ed
    May 22, 2009

    His appearance on Stewart was priceless. To see a hack like him appear on a show where he can’t act like a monkey and do nothing for his viewers was priceless. When Stewart showed that video of him where he was talking seriously about finance to an interviewer you could see how greatly it contrasted with his on-air personality. It brilliantly displayed how he daily betrays his viewers on his CNBC show. He has real knowledge and chooses not to share it just so people will pour money into the market. What ring of hell does that put you in?

  10. #10 Herm
    May 22, 2009

    I agree with you Ed. Now what relevance does this have on a blog titled “Evolutionblog: Commentary on the Endless Dispute Between Evolution and Creationism”?

  11. #11 Ed
    May 22, 2009

    His appearance on Stewart was priceless. To see a hack like him appear on a show where he can’t act like a monkey and do nothing for his viewers was priceless. When Stewart showed that video of him where he was talking seriously about finance to an interviewer you could see how greatly it contrasted with his on-air personality. It brilliantly displayed how he daily betrays his viewers on his CNBC show. He has real knowledge and chooses not to share it just so people will pour money into the market. What ring of hell does that put you in?

  12. #12 ed
    May 22, 2009

    Sorry for the multiple comments. I kept getting a message that it wasn’t going through.

  13. #13 DuWayne
    May 23, 2009

    Remarkably Herm, not all scibloggers blog science in every post. Many of us appreciate that.

    The important question is what does your comment have to do with the topic at hand?

  14. #14 Herm
    May 23, 2009

    DuWayne #13

    Nothing I guess. I get it now that scienceblogs is often about science but also about atheism and liberal politics. That’s fine. Got it. I was mislead by the scienceblogs title. My mistake.

    I heard a story on NPR yesterday where economists analyzed Cramer’s stock picks over a two year period. His picks provided a 12% return which beat the S&P by quite a bit. OF course he only did this by increasing risk and when adjusting for risk his record was no better or no worse than average. Of course he mentioned on his show beating the S&P and the 12% return but totally failed to mention the risk adjustment part of the study. And he didn’t make himself available to NPR to comment on the story. Based on the NPR coverage of this study it sounds like, according to the available evidence, Cramer is more or less harmless. Follow his picks and you want make much money but probably won’t lose much either.

    But, getting your financial advice from CNBC which is really more about entertainment than sound financial advice is a little like learning about evolution from scienceblogs, which isn’t really about science necessarily.

  15. #15 eddie
    June 8, 2009

    Herm, please, go find a dictionary and look at the words ‘honesty’, ‘integrity’, ‘truth’. They are not difficult concepts and you’ll be amazed at the variety of fields to which they may be applied.
    While you’re about it, have a look at ‘evidence’, ‘authority’ and, of course, ‘science’. You will be equally amazed at how the scientific method can be used to assess evidence and the claims of authority to assess their honesty, imtegrity and truth.
    Others, don’t you agree the “there’s not enough science” concern-trolls are the most pathetic (Herm, look it up)?