Tue, 17 Mar 2009

Creaming Cramer

The mediasphere, mostly on the left-hand side, has been all abuzz about Jon Stewart's takedown of CNBC's Jim Cramer on basic cable. (The rightward parts are mostly ignoring it.) Everyone seems to be wondering why the usually-formidable Cramer allowed Daily Show funnyman Stewart to eat his liver with such unopposed gusto. But I wonder, what was Cramer to do? If he blasted back with both barrels, he would have come across as a monstrous dick, and I have little doubt that Stewart was ready for such a comeback and might have made the interview even more damaging. So Cramer sat there and let Stewart pummel him, and came out looking like a weaselly little wimp instead. Dick or wimp—it was basically a no-win situation.

I think maybe Cramer was taking a hint from Tucker Carlson's experience on Crossfire with Stewart in 2004. Poor hapless Carlson came at Stewart like a freight train, mocking him for pitching softball questions at candidate Kerry when he had a chance to really probe for the softest parts of the senator's underbelly. Stewart's response was classic: "You're on CNN; the show that leads in to me is puppets making crank phone calls. What is wrong with you?" Stewart's point was, if people "look to Comedy Central for their cues on [journalistic] integrity", then the country is in trouble. Surveys have shown that they are doing exactly that, though, so I guess we really are in trouble. Like we needed more clues.

Now, I'm not defending Cramer. I happen to think that he is a colossal douche, albeit a very smart one, and never for a second did I think he really felt guilty of the charges Stewart was levelling at him. But I'm not sure his response to the interview was worse than the alternatives. A couple months after his interview with Stewart, CNN dropped Carlson, and soon thereafter Crossfire was cancelled. I bet Cramer keeps his job, despite predictions to the contrary from some pundits.

The press is changing: Blogs are sizzling hot right now, and even traditional media outlets are starting their own. The public is starting to expect instant turnaround, causing things like Twitter to gain prominence. Newspapers across the country are closing up shop, or at least switching to electronic distribution. Most blame the expansion of the Internet and the contraction of attention spans, but I think it may have more to do with the changes in the relationship between journalists and their quarry. In days past, to paraphrase Hanns Johst, when people saw a reporter, they reached for their gun.

People used to hate reporters—watch any movie from the 1940s or earlier. Back then, if a politician saw a Norway rat and a reporter, he'd have to think pretty hard before deciding which one to throw a shoe at first. Nowadays, they're all chums, and the biggest decision is whether to meet at CityZen or Capital Grill for their off-the-record interview. And reporters being human, they tend to pull back from setting their friends afire. They have fooled themselves into thinking that they need the politicians, rather than the other way around. And in today's world of a million channels, pages, and articles, with the media being controlled by fewer than a half dozen deregulated multinational corporations, maybe they're right.

I hope this doesn't eventually shake out with The Most Trusted Name in News bashing cuneiform into clay tablets with a broken pool cue.

Posted at: 12:27 | category: /Politics | Comments (0)