Reflections on the Stewart-Cramer interview

By Michael J.W. Stickings

(My initial reaction is here. Watch the interview here.)

Last night, as you know, Jon Stewart took down Jim Cramer and exposed the ridiculousness of the stock-happy, CEO-coddling business media, as well as the malfeasance of master manipulators like Cramer. It was an amazing and utterly one-sided debate, with Stewart coming out easily on top, and it made for some amazing television.

There is nothing "faux" about Stewart. He may be self-deprecating, and he may often shield his his seriousness of purpose behind his comedian persona, and behind his unwillingness to take himself too seriously, but he and his show -- which isn't "fake," journalistically or otherwise -- are far more real, and far more honest, than just about anything else in the media. (And so it isn't surprising that many in the media, threatened and insecure, continue to write him off as "fake.")

With most in the media unable and unwilling to do what they are supposed to do, so beholden are they to their corporate masters (and so much a part of the problem, especially in Washington and New York), Jon Stewart has become one of America's leading commentators. This is why so many people turn to him night after night -- and why, last night, it fell to him to take on not just Cramer but what Cramer represents, Cramer's whole world. Who or what else is there out there? There are a few in print, yes, and more online, but on television? PBS, 60 Minutes, which has its moments, and, like Stewart, others who don't have the platform of a major network. It isn't cable news, that's for sure. CNBC, Cramer's network, is precisely what Stewart was exposing. MSNBC, another part of the pro-Cramer NBC family -- well, it is being reported that MSNBC intentionally avoided the Stewart-Cramer interview today, apparently not wanting to highlight Cramer's failure. CNN doesn't know what it's doing much of the time, and Fox News, well, you know where Fox stands on all this, firmly against Stewart and fully dominated by right-wing ideology.

I disagree entirely with the Times's Alessandra Stanley, who wrote today that Stewart's "point was not to hear Mr. Cramer out, but to act out a cathartic ritual of indignation and castigation." No, his point was to speak the truth to a liar and a fraud, and he did just that. Stanley obviously didn't get it, perhaps because of her own right-wing inclinations, and her piece is full of anti-Stewart nonsense. She even claims, evidently out of her mind, that he has "always had a messianic streak to his political satire." Apparently some people can't handle the truth, or what nothing to do with it.

That applies to Stanley and to others like U.S. News blogger James Pethokoukis, who alleges that "Stewart really doesn't believe in the idea of a stock market where individuals can go to invest their money and build wealth over the long term." This is just crazy. How is Stewart against the market? He isn't against it, just as he isn't against long-term investment, he's against, to repeat, the stock-happy, CEO-coddling business media and the malfeasance of master manipulators like Cramer. Not that that matters to the right, for which any criticism even of the excesses of the market amounts to an assault on the very foundations of capitalism. So Obama is written off as a "socialist," even though he is nothing of the kind, and Stewart is similarly dismissed as an anti-market "liberal." It's all so silly, but the smears are hugely popular among conservatives, who seem to accept dishonesty, fraud, and corruption in the market without much concern.

As for me, I agree with James Fallows: Jon Stewart is the new Edward R. Murrow. And, after last night, I will watch him with even greater pride and admiration than ever.