Zucker vs. Stewart: "Completely out of line" on Cramer and CNBC
Summary: NBC Universal CEO Jeff Zucker kicked off the 2009 Business Week Media Summit this morning by criticizing Comedy Central satirist and commentator Jon Stewart as being "incredibly unfair to CNBC and business media in general" in his critical interview of CNBC financial show host Jim Cramer last week.
NBC Universal CEO Jeff Zucker kicked off the 2009 Business Week Media Summit this morning by criticizing Comedy Central satirist and commentator Jon Stewart as being "incredibly unfair to CNBC and business media in general" in his critical interview of CNBC financial show host Jim Cramer last week.
The repercussions of the credit crisis, failure of financial institutions and steep fall of the economy are not the fault of any member of the media, including Cramer, Zucker indicated in response to a leadoff question from Business Week executive editor Ellen Pollock on the Stewart vs. Cramer face-off. "You can't blame what happened here on the business media,'' he said (Techmeme).
CNBC 'distinguished itself' in its coverage of the crisis and the economy over the last two years. And Zucker praised Cramer for distinguishing himself on at least two occasions: first, when he made a passionate plea on CNBC in August 2007 for Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke to open the discount window, lowering interest rates to ease the developing credit crisis; and, second, when he said on NBC's Today show in October 2008 that anyone who expected to need their savings in the next five years should "go to cash now."
"You can't look at any singuar call that Jim Cramer or CNBC makes" and make them culprits for the nation's or world's economic maladies, Zucker said. With 401Ks all down, including his, Zucker said "we all want to blame somebody."
But, he said, "to suggest CNBC was responsible is absurd."
If you missed the exchange between Cramer of CNBC's "Mad Money" show and Stewart on Stewart's "Daily Show," here it is, on Hulu (a joint venture of NBC and Fox). You form your own opinion of its fairness.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
I think Stewart was right on
rather than luring people into investing in ways solely to make money,
they could have made people aware a long time ago of what was in store.
The problem with real reporting is that the reporter will, if he or she is
doing a good job, will upset this or that CEO or other Master of the
Universe, and lose access to information about that company.
RE: Zucker Vs. Stewart:
RE: Zucker Vs. Stewart:
A journalists job is to not take people at their word, but to probe. To investigate. There was plenty of information out there to indicate some major problems at the companies that failed well before they failed. Instead of getting a sales pitch from a CEO, they should have looked at the SEC reports and financials.
Also.. when the SEC waivered the requirements for several companies to keep less than 1% liquidity in the company, it was gross negligence on the part of the business media to not cover that and ask basic questions about how financially sound a decision that would be for banks to have no liquid assets to cover their depositors. Any cash run or large withdrawal would require the banks to pull money from somewhere.
Zucker is misleading on a great scale
Cramer's just the whipping boy
RE: Zucker Vs. Stewart:
Every Court needs a Jester
The question has been asked, and (as far as I can tell), is still unanswered: does the business media serve the public at large, including the business / financial community, or does it serve only the business/financial community, ignoring the needs of the rest of the polity? Solid investigative reporting by the CNBC and its competitors is what is needed now. Truely, some very rich, very powerful people will become very upset, perhaps even upset enough to try and destroy CNBC.
Tough.
For better or for worse, that is what they signed up for when they decided to become reporters. Not for perks. Not for lunches at corporate headquarters. The time has come for business media to stand up and embrace its 4th estate responsibilities. Mr. Zucker is ashamed at being shown up by Comedy Central, America's court jester. Jon Stewart has done his job. Now CNBC (and their ilk) have to do thiers.
RE: Zucker Vs. Stewart:
RE: Zucker Vs. Stewart:
What do you expect Zucker to say
"Yes CNBC is dumbed down drivel. Jon Stewart
was dead on. And grownups watch Bloomberg TV,
but I have to tell you that CNBC is great
because, well I own it."
Aside from Faber and Mark Haines CNBC leaves a
lot to be desired.
And by the way I like Cramer, but his calls
always have to be viewed only from a trading
perspective. He has good calls but sometimes
they only last a few hours at best. Do your own
due diligence.
RE: Zucker Vs. Stewart:
entertaining, it needs to take responsibility when someone
like Cramer tells people to buy a certain stock and then
causes people to lose a lot of money. They deserve all of the
ridicule that they can get. Regular people who watch the
program(s) and are not investing experts, take what these
people say seriously and will invest their money as
recommended. In hind site, it's pretty shameful.
RE: Zucker Vs. Stewart:
a lengthy disclaimer which states that viewers should consult
with a financial advisor while considering any moves in their
investments. The disclaimer often appears even when he
opines on other CNBC shows. The news readers at the major
TV networks should be made to make similar disclosures
given the amount of spin in today's 'news'. Anyone who
makes a move based solely on Cramer's input deserves
whatever they get.
Well then, what good is it?
take it off the air and put on Lucy.
CNBC isn't the only problem, but they do contribute towards the problem
I know just what you mean
a motorcycle from scratch that didn't work perfectly either.
I hope Jon straightens out those OCC guys next.
Thanks for proving my point
RE: Zucker Vs. Stewart:
also enjoy).
Notice that I said 'solely' on what Cramer says. Viewers
can take what he says, along with other inputs, including
help from their financial planner, and decide what to do
given their circumstances.
If the idea was just do what he says and you get rich, we'd
all do it. With reward comes risk.
RE: Zucker Vs. Stewart:
When they did have analysts on who questioned, like Schiff and others. They blew them off as loons, I have no pity for CNBC now. Their "news" section is exposed as little more than cheerleaders. Many of us knew this already, and Stewart is just gaining some laughs pointing it out.
RE: Zucker Vs. Stewart:
Once again, media (including Steinert-Threlkeld) misses the point
lets this strawman attack go out under his byline
without comment. THIS is exactly what Stewart was
talking about.
Stewart was not claiming that Cramer or Zucker or
anyone at CNBC or any other network CAUSED the
meltdown.
His complaint is that the networks coddle executives
in business and government, stroking their egos, and
re-printing their press releases in order to maintain
access. Then, these officials with an agenda dole out
the access to the network so they can have a podium to
make statements which they know will go unchallenged,
unverified, and unfiltered by these mannequins
masquerading as journalists.
The press is protected in the Constitution because it
is expected to watch the government, and by not doing
that, CNBC and other so-called news stations
squandered any chance they might have had to alert us
to the severity of the crisis in advance.