I am going to go against the grain here, open myself up to some harsh criticism, and defend Jim Cramer a little bit concerning his appearance on the “Daily Show.” Before I get into this though, I must say I am really not a fan of either of them, which was all the more reason to tune in. John Stewart’s program I don’t enjoy because of his copy and paste style editing through which he attempts to make everyone he has ideological differences with comic fodder and an object of ridicule. Though he isn’t always off the mark, contextual references are hardly included and whatever the program, news article or any various medium which attempts to do this, I immediately switch off, for it is a contorting of a persons words in order to vilify rather than represent fact. Yet, admittedly he is a comedy show so he gets a lot more leeway than say a true news show, but when you take clips from the news or quote people you suppose a responsibility to do it accurately and fully. When it is not it is simply beyond excuse.
Cramer is quite a different matter. I don’t enjoy his program because he is simply just annoying. I don’t like how he plays with dolls and dances around all the time. It just doesn’t instill in me a confidence to put any trust in him concerning what the markets are going to do or where I am going to place my money. However, sometimes a person’s demeanor when they are confronted can change a viewer’s perception and though I still would never have any inkling into placing my trust in Cramer, I still consider him the better man when compared with Stewart.
Stewart of course just laced into Cramer, who I wish stood up for himself a little bit more, but who took it civilly nonetheless. I kind of felt bad for Cramer and felt Stewart was overstepping his bounds by attacking the wrong person. Cramer has unfairly become the poster child of the bad economy, but it is not his fault really. In fact, if Stewart really felt like attacking those responsible, he would be attacking those who share in his ideology and messed up, but God forbid he do that. No, Stewart would much rather go after a messenger or someone who by his very job description has to make calls on the future as a commentator, than have to attack those who are truly responsible. That is not to say people outside of Stewart’s ideology aren’t to blame either, but I am positive he has no problem raising issue with these people.
Now, there is the big difference between Stewart and Cramer, which made Cramer’s treatment so unfair to me. Cramer does economic commentary and attempts to make picks on stocks. If anyone knows anything about stocks, they know that it is always a gamble, no matter whose advice you follow. Stocks are not based in fact, but rather on statistical data and probability, so errors are going to inevitably occur. Though Cramer said he was an expert, to think this means he is going to get everything right 100% of the time is an unfair expectation. Furthermore, if you base your stock picks on someone on TV alone, you are taking a huge risk and if you feel there is no risk, you should have no business buying stocks. Cramer goes out there night after night making calls on the future and weighing probability, not fact, for no fact can be determined from the market. Add in the one fact we do know, the huge text that appears on the screen on his show saying essentially, “Don’t take this advice to be gospel,” and you have the responsibility going to the viewer who should not have put all their security and money on the words of a mere journalist and commentator. If you do the fault is just as much your own as with anything else.
Stewart on the other hand doesn’t have to put his neck out and make calls on the future. No, he is a comedian and criticizes and critiques the past. Now I ask you, which one is more uncertain in its outcome and which one is taking more of the risk? All the risk falls on Cramer and for Stewart to sit back and attack him in such a way when he offers nothing except critiques and criticisms on that which has already occurred is unreasonable. It is nice to be able to sit behind a comfy desk and insult and spit at people when offering nothing of yourself to criticism. Stewart has the ability to call anyone stupid who disagrees with him and insult whoever when he is questioned. He offers nothing, but comedy and insults, while real news people have to put their butt on the line every night.
Stewart’s family apparently lost money listening to Cramer and the CNBC network, and while I can be sensitive to that, the fact remains where was Stewart? Why didn’t he with his omniscient knowledge and wisdom bestow this deep intelligence towards his own mother or viewers, if he knew so much? Why did he sit on his butt? It is because he didn’t know anymore then the rest of us did and now is reaching for straws to attack and tear apart anyone he can, including news commentators, who do real news and have a responsibility to call what may happen tomorrow by the positions they have. All economic commentators are asked to do this, but one needs to weigh their words with what they truly believe and if they believe a commentator and engage in stocks on those very words alone, then the fault does not lie with the commentator, but rather those who took their words as complete truth.
People make mistakes, even people in the news. Every time you turn on the TV you should always remember to carry a handful of salt to sprinkle about because nothing you see is guaranteed to represent what has really happened, is happening, or going to happen. This you need to figure out for yourself concerning all evidence and if you need someone to tell you what to believe and how to act then the fault really lies with you. Cramer sure had nothing to gain out of being wrong. He had his viewership on the line, his reputation, his career and his respect. What did Stewart have? Nothing whatsoever and if he knows so much then he should have at very least told his mother not to invest according to Cramer, but he didn’t so where does the fault lie? It is only in the sleep of reason that people like Cramer, who merely comment and make calls on the markets, are held to account and judged, while those people who actually affected the markets walk away scot free. This is just another example of the misplaced power we put in our television personalities and our willingness to overlook those really responsible.
No comments:
Post a Comment