Truthfully, the discussion didn't seem like the horrific fight everyone is making it out to be. Sure, there were some mean things and curse words dropped here and there, but I thought it was a civil, reasonable argument.

Or maybe I'm just desensitized to it all so much that it seemed civil by comparison.

Yeah I noticed that too.

It was actually kinda refreshing....someone actually showed up on the show when most people would just ditch (Santelli anyone?) And it didnt turn into a walk-off-the-set kinda fight. Stewart always seems prepared and ready to take over or concede points. Half the time its the guests that become the problem.

Also interesting was how Jon didnt make it always about Cramer, he said "CNBC" an awful lot (granted the clips were all Cramer).

I give Cramer points for just showing up. The man either has humongous balls or is just crazy (mad if you will!). Unfortunately, he comes across as the fall guy for his entire network.

I've always felt that Cramer's show is good, aside from the lightning round. Unfortunately, the lightning round is what most people watch. If anything, I guess he's guilty of giving the people what they want. I don't think people would watch the hard hitting journalism Jon Stewart is talking about.

Nobody won. Except their advertisers. These men are both *entertainers* not *journalists*. We shouldn't expect integrity from either. They're both in it to sell ad space. The truth, their veiwers, it doesn't matter. They just want eyes on ads. They don't care about anything else.

cramer was reespectful and so was stewart. This was nothing like the crossfire incident. cramer is still puzzling though. He has a really nefarious poast regarding his hedge fund days. anyways teh true target of the daily show was CNBC anyone who thinks cramer was jon's beef is just wrong.

Great videos. I've watched them multiple times already!

But yeah - what LoganAdams said (above). These were two very well-informed gentlemen having well-reasoned differences of opinion. Let's replace reality television of today with THIS kind of reality television.

Really, who cares. Both these guys are idiots who blather on about nonsense and have no relation to any sort of journalism except showing what is not journalism and claims to be entertainment. These two should just settle it like men in Weehawken!

I think from Jim Cramer's quivering voice it was obvious that he knew how badly Stewart was laying a thorough ass wupping. Not sure what Cramer was expecting by making an appearance, but obviously it wasn't that. I think whatever credibility, if any, CNBC had left has gone up in smoke. Cramer profusely apologized the entire interview and didn't present a very good face for the network.

The tape of Jim Cramer shrugging his shoulders while admitting his stock manipulation as a hedge fund manager made me furious. There should be an investigation of that.

Cramer tends to go off at half-cock some of the time, but when he goes off at full cock, the fur really flies.

Santelli's "Tea Party in July" rant got everybody's attention, especially when it happened in the heart of one of the major trading floors at the Chicago Merc. I still believe that the party may happen anyway if out of honor for him.

I have no desire to have babies, but I'd so have Jon Stewart's babies.

I felt at the end that Cramer was able to wriggle off with too many "I wish I did better" statements.

Jon's big points were that the financial world was guilty of a sin of commission rather than just not doing better. Cramer didn't fail his viewers, by actively drawing in viewers with promises of expertise and quality information CNBC and "Mad Money" actually sought out people to misinform and mislead.

I haven't watched CNBC for about a year and I won't be watching again. I certainly hope this doesn't turn into a boon for the network and more people shut them out.

Thanks to the Consumerist for following this from the beginning. I love TDS, but don't watch every night. Having followed this story on the blog, I made sure to tune in last night.

It reminded me of when Stewart went on Crossfire. It showed his true range as a public figure, and his genuine concern for the average American who gets ignored as the majority of politicians and "news" outlets pander to their respective fringe groups. Kudos to Jon for asking the hard questions. Hopefully Cramer and his network are actually examining their consciences the way he appeared to be last night.

The Daily show won...The American People lost....Their shirts.

Don

@Chantillian: Though I agree with the Salon blog that the problem with the financial press echoed the problem with the political press--that basically there was little to distinguish them from paid mouthpieces for the people they were ostensibly reporting the truth about, so what are they actually for? It's a point that, for my money (which I didn't actually intend as a play on words initially), needs to be made more often. Helen Thomas isn't going to live forever, people.

@HarcourtArmstrong:

(Doing this reply manually because it doesn't seem to be working)

I think you're right - the biggest problem is the shows are giving American viewers what they want; fast money answers. The network isn't going to claim responsibility, they'll just say "do you believe everything you see on TV?" yet they're the ones who are putting it on the air as if it's fact, truth and the right thing to do.

Biggest problem with Americans is they fell for it.

@ dangermike

As somebody who has created his own show and works in the entertainment industry I can tell you right now that, while advertisements help fund the show and give us the profit margin to continue the show, it is not "all about the ads." We created our show to entertain people in our target market, not simply turn a dime...

For you to call out Jon Stewart on this matter is both ignorant and ridiculous as you: 1. Don't know Jon Stewart or probably anybody who works on his show and 2. obviously don't know what it's like to create your own creative element.

@Jim King:

I also love TDS but only catch it a couple tiems a month. Stewart earned my respect with the crossfire incident.

I have a twinge of sadness when I realized i got my 'news' from a comedy show. I think that speaks volumes to the current state of our media. I have the feeling that Stewart is really the only person that gives a damn.

I think Cramer should be given credit for taking a beating, you could see through his body language he was feeling it. I have to say I was impressed as hell with the audience for not hooting and screaming every time Stewart said something that everyone I know wants to say too. Particularly the line about "you want to make finance entertaining, but it's not a fucking game"

I think that's why Stewart has gone after them because all of the pundits are acting like this is fun and interesting but for a lot of people this is a freakin' disaster.

@N.RobertMoses: That is very inacurate for Jon Stewart saying that he has no relation to any sort of journalism, the man went to school for journalism, in fact it was just years ago when people were asking when he was going to give up on fake news and move into working on real news teams.

The man worked hard to get where is, and learned a lot along the way but to say he has no relation verges on insanity.

@dangermike: Thats the truth about pretty much any journalist, they expect to get paid and generaly every form of media I know of sells ad space...

I think Stewart won if you can call it that . He did an excellent job of taking Cramer to task . But I wish Stewart had more clips of CNBC treating some of these CEOs and so called experts like gods .

@N.RobertMoses: I'm in Weehawken and there's plenty of room for each man to walk 10 paces in front of my building. Let's do this thing.

If you let CNBC control what you do with your finances, you need help.

A couple of times it sounded like Cramer was about to cry. He knows he was wrong, he knows his network is a steaming pile of crap and he's worried it's being revealed to the world.

Stewert stuck to his guns and stayed on the same path he has said from day 1. The reason he is in business is because the press are enablers and his job is to point this out humorously.

I would hug the guy because he wasn't willing to back down or take shit from CNBC. All cable new networks suck up to these guys. No one asks hard questions today unless it works in their FAVOR. Fox new is horrible about this as NBC is. It just happens to be they are now on the side of the fence NBC was on for so long.

Makes me laugh and sad at the same time.

If you want to invest in the stock market, quick listening to TV to get your knowledge. It will rot your brain and ruin you.

@Robert M Getch: Except those affiliated with the Consumer's Union :).

Meh. More of an energetic discussion than a battle.

Daily Show had the upper hand since it was home court advantage, though.

He seemed pretty nervous throughout the interview (Cramer). I get that The Daily Show is comedy and not real news and because of that he can really stand up to these guys because he can always fall back on the 'haha this is funny' but at the same time ask the tough questions. I think that's why the show does so well.

I want to say I side with Stewart because Cramer didn't actually offer any answers, only defenses as to CNBC's behavior, and Stewart did rightfully call out Cramer with the 2006 clips.

Santelli didn't upset me, because I understood the rant as frustration and personal opinion, and I totally understand the reasoning behind his rant.

I also think Santelli kind of went against CNBC when he made his rant, because you could see how CNBC got uncomfortable with his rant. And I don't necessarily think CNBC endorsed Santelli just because they didn't stop him when he was live.

I don't want to be paying for someone else who made poor decisions in life, it's not my responsibility and I resent having that choice made for me. But at the same time, not everyone who is underwater made poor decisions. For some of those people, things just fell apart from the depressed markets and job losses.

We're all in so deep, regardless of whether we were the responsible ones, that everyone has to pitch in to keep the boat afloat. It's not about who made the wrong decisions anymore because obviously these people are so underwater, they can't even begin to work toward getting back to the surface. And so it falls on the responsible ones to consider the benefit of the whole country. It doesn't mean we have to like it, but reality is not always nice.

I rarely enjoy the interviews Stewart does because a lot of the people who come on his show are so awkward on TV and don't know what to do with Stewart's comments...but Cramer seemed at home there, and I loved the discussion between them. It was actually much more entertaining than Cramer's show.

To his credit, Cramer doles out plenty of advice but no one should ever, ever, ever rely on CNBC for their financial decisions. Who would trust one TV network for that?

I agree with Stewart that CNBC can be a great tool, but it cannot replace the regulators. That's just putting a bandaid on a bayonet wound. The regulators need to deal with this, and make themselves effective. But I agree with Stewart that CNBC needs to choose whether their side is for the consumers they report to, or the side of the CEOs they apparently pander to. Cramer says he believed they were honest - okay, fine. Even if he did, that's over. CNBC as a whole needs to stop taking what CEOs are saying at face value, and do real investigations and real reporting to make consumers aware of what their banks and financial institutions are really doing behind their backs and on the backs of the country's people.

It seemed like Cramer wasn't expecting Stewart to go after him so hard, with such well reasoned analysis. Or perhaps he was expecting it, but the overlords at the Shinehardt Wig Company just told him to go on the show and take his beating for the sake of the network.

What I got out of this : Why do we have a financial system based on rumor, innuendo and speculation like a Jr. high school girls reputation?

I appreciate Stewart's boiling-down of points of this mess into terms that most people can understand.

But, to concede a point to Cramer and other media finance reporters/commentators, I'm not sure there were many people who saw this implosion being set up. With hindsight, we can all stand agog at the 30:1 leveraging and ARMs. But reporter after reporter have said they just didn't see it coming, and I'm sure they're not all just taking the Adolph Eichmann-style defense. Best case might be Suze Orman who said the stock market would dip again, but even she was flogging ARMs in her book my mom gave me when I graduated college.

The problem is our focus on corporate short-term profits. That's what's screwed us on this, and we can't entirely fault people like Cramer for being products of their own culture.

@u1itn0w2day: I think they are treated like gods because they are afraid those CEOs won't agree to be interviewed anymore if they don't. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying, that's what they're thinking.

If CEOs don't agree to go on your show, the only recourse is to guilt them into doing so. When you do that, you're walking a thin line between hard hitting journalism and libelous statements.

@N.RobertMoses: See here's the problem with that- Both these guys blather on and make a bunch of crap up as they go along. Unfortunately, Stewart is the only one pointing that fact out. He freely admits (if you can call it an admission) that his show is just a bunch of crap thrown together. Kramer's show is the polar opposite. He expects you to take his word as gospel and fact. THATS why they're in this mess.

@u1itn0w2day: He did in earlier segments about CNBC.

I couldn't disagree more. Jon Stewart has become the cultural leader of an entire generation of liberal-leaning students and young professionals. He sees all the destruction that the financial industry has caused over the last few years and he's assigning blame to areas of our society where no one else will dare point their finger: financial news networks like CNBC, who have basically become the financial industry's PR machine. The fact that he's technically a comedian is irrelevant; no one else is willing to do what he does!

And Jim Cramer is no idiot either. He's an incredibly smart and talented man, but he got corrupted by Wall Street just like anyone else. The difference with him is that he constantly tries to redeem himself by attempting to help out the little guy (obviously he's not always successful) and occasionally revealing some of Wall Street's dirty secrets. Cramer's definitely guilty, but I have to applaud him for having the decency & balls to face the public and answer for the sins of CNBC. Everyone else at CNBC is going to remain silent and hope that we all forget the accusations and denouncements lobbed at them by Jon Stewart.

The bottom line is that this is an incredibly important discussion, and if it continues, it will have a profound impact on the future of the financial industry and how we view it. I really hope it doesn't stop here.

I watched the full, unedited versions of the interview this morning.

It was truly an eyeopener for me and would be for most of the American public. People need to know how the stock market really works and I think the full interview should be aired by mainstream media like on CBS or CNN. Lou Dobbs is always saying he is for the American people and he should play the full 30 minute interview on his show if he really cares about the average American like he says he does.

@LoganAdams: I agree, I am just glad cramer had the nerve to get up there and sort of own up to the mistakes he has said in the past. He took his lashes so to speak and rightfully so.

i don't know if you could say that jon stewart won this round. he had better talking points & was more prepared, but he's preaching to the court jester here. i mean come on, who takes this man seriously? & even if he did "investigative financial journalism", would anyone really listen?

i understand jon's points & agree with them, but he should be talking to joe kernan or carl quintanilla or maria bartiromo.

i think cnbc letting jim cramer act as their spokesperson in this matter was a smart move. they can isolate any effects these interviews might have had on their more mainstream shows.

so, jon's talking points = win. cnbc's strategic "shenanigans" = win. overall? i guess it's a tie?

I get Stewarts point but CNBC is WAY low on the list of people / entities to blame for this. The government is at the top of the list, they allowed a secondary market to exist in such a state as to provided banks with a huge financial incentive to make these junk loans. Second place (atleast on my list) is a tie between the bankers who made the loans knowing that the loans were trash and the people who freely entered into contracts that involved payments that they either couldn't afford or that may adjust to a payment that they couldn't afford. Third on the list is all of the quasi-professional in the realestate industry like real estate agents, especially buyers agents / or Mortgage brokers who are supposed to represent the interests of their clients - ever hear of one of those guys saying "Mr. ConstructionWorker, you made $6,000 in May... that is not the same as having a steady income of $6,000 / mo. Do you really think it is in the best interests of your and your family to buy a $350k house with $1k down using a variable rate mortgage - this could be a disaster for your family. Lets look at some properties that you will be able to afford even if work gets slow for a while so you can keep a roof over the kids heads..." I'm pretty sure the interaction was more like "Mr. ConstructionWorker, home prices go up 5% per year, count on it! This is a great investment for you! Once this ARM adjusts up just refinance - you will have no problems! But there is just one thing... There is a house just down the street that has a bigger garage and an additional bathroom - from a resale perspective I think it is a better investment, and it only costs $12k more!"

@mac-phisto: by "who takes this man seriously?", i was referring to jim cramer, btw. i know it reads a little ambiguously.

Our only real source of strong reporting is the comedy channel... great.

@dangermike: Huh? So you completely dismiss and ignore anything that was *actually* discussed in the interview, and have nothing to comment on, except to say that they both are on t.v. shows that sell ads.

Wow. Just wow. I guess no one ever has anything substantial to say on t.v., ever, since pretty much everything on t.v. requires advertising dollars.

moore850: Just because it's comedy central doesn't mean that it can't take on a whole new meaning. The Daily Show happens to get the leeway to do things in a satirical way because it's on Comedy Central. If it got the same amount of leeway wherever it went, it wouldn't matter if it was on a "serious" network like CNN.

I think this is the tipping point in which Jon Stewart and The Daily Show transcend "fake news" and really take some people to task for decisions, and really attempt to help laypeople understand what is going on around them. There have always been political guests on the show as well as celebrities, and I think this CNBC fiasco was the final straw that made TDS more than just "fake news" - it made it more relevant in the way that I think it was taking some advantage of its reputation for having a younger audience not saturated with CNN and Fox News reports and using that wisely by demanding answers and explaining the current climate for people.

I found the episode to be very good, very refreshing to watch. I don't always agree with Stewart's political views, but I always respect the fact that TDS knows its audience, and knows that it's got a very unique position to help change the way things are being done by calling out the people who had a hand in it, and to demand an explanation. He might be a comedian, but he is also extremely good at boiling down the points, and he also has the benefit of being able to say what he wants in a public forum.

Great job Jon!! Keep taking it to them since 'real' journalists are apparently unwilling to do it themselves.

It was not the horrible cage match the media would like it to have been...it was civil, thorough drubbing, with Jim Cramer in the role of errant employee and John Stewart as the supervisor saying, "you need to shape up." Even from the first exchange, Cramer is like a dog with his tail between his legs. Stewart could've destroyed him, but that wasn't the point...it was brutal, but absolutely fair, and I wish more people would say things like this in the media.

@Homerjay loves stars. :): Exactly. It's about what you make yourself out to be. Jon Stewart made that very clear when he took down Crossfire. He hosts a COMEDY SHOW. Not the news. He is not the standard to which journalism SHOULD be held, but unfortunately these days he is.

The Daily Show isn't fake news anymore so much as they are the people who point out that the networks and programs that tout themselves as real news are a bunch of fakes.

@LoganAdams: It was a bitch slapping. A civil, reasonable bitch slapping. But a bitch slapping nonetheless.