Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

TLStockPicks (92.22)

What on earth was Jim Cramer doing last night?

Recs

12

March 13, 2009 – Comments (29)

I like Stewart.  I don't like Cramer.  But in this whole debate about responsibility and how stock touts are evil, Stewart is dead wrong.  And Cramer sat there, took it in the rear, and failed to remind the world that this stock "investment" world is indeed one giant clusterkuf of a game, and you knew damn well before getting into it that it was risky.

How many times have people told you that the stock market is risky?  If you didn't know that, then the money you lost from this recession paid for your biggest lesson.  How many of those who lost a lot of money in this market selected the capital preservation fund on their 401(k)s or had put their savings into CDs and treasuries and other safe investments like good little boys are supposed to?  If you're about to retire and will need that money, or cannot handle the risk of losing it all, or just don't know a damn thing about how this game is played, that's what you should've done.  But most of us chose those exciting double-digit return funds.  The money we managed on our own, we stuck into stocks.  The reason that you and I or anyone else does something like that is because we are greedy.  We want to get ahead.  We want to make money on top of money on top of money.  And when comparing those olden-day treasuries of 4% to the often-quoted S&P return of 10%, we all said "10% pleeease" while dismissing the whole concept of risk and volatility.  We lost because we were greedy.  But some of us lost more because they didn't do their own thinking. 

The stock market isn't supposed to be fun... it's not that kind of game.  The end-game for each and every individual stock is to either 1) be absorbed or bought out by another company, or 2) crash, burn, and fail.  You have to accept that all of your holdings can possibly end up in category 2.  And not everyone's out there looking out for your best interest... we aren't all holding hands collectively trying to get rich at the same time.  I want to make more money than you, and if i had a way to get ahead that was legal and it came at your expense, you better believe that I would do it.  Anyone playing this game will do whatever they can to get ahead, and there'll always be a bigger player than you that can ruin your day.  It's not nice, it's not fair, it's not freggin' tiddlywinks.  No, this stock game might not be zero-sum, but you are a damn idiot if you think someone isn't trying to make money at the expense of your greed every single minute, whether it be the "financial advisor" who gets a commission on your activity or the guy who's trying to destroy the viability of a company you just bought stock in by shorting the hell out of it.

Yes, the folks at CNBC like Cramer touted stocks that failed.  So have you, and so have I.  Should we skewer these people just because they have a podium?  This guy Cramer has made recommendations of every stock known to man... do we really expect him to get them all right??  And why on earth would you ever base your decisions solely on a guy on TV who acts like a lunatic?!?  If you really listen to him, you'll realize that all he does is give you tidbits of information about a stock followed by his spin on those facts.  If you want to use that information in the stock market game, you go take that information, put it together with everything else you can find, and put the responsibility on yourself when you decide to pull the trigger.  And if you never learned how to put the pieces together, either through school or on your own or by just having a few ounces of common sense, then leave your money in the bank or don't cry if it disappears.

And please cut CNBC a break for "failing" to "expose" the corruption and the failures and the imminent doom and gloom.  Um... who did?  It's easy now to sit back and say "well if anyone, it should've been CNBC."  But again... there wasn't anyone who had the information to make that conclusion.  I don't need CNBC to do my investigative journalism... I doubt everybody until proven otherwise.  CNBC could have speculated... and I'm sure some of their pundits might have even done so and gotten some things right, but of course those clips won't roll on the Daily Show. 

Stewart, I think you're funny, well spoken, and quick witted.  But stop breeding ignorance by telling the American public that somehow their crappier-than-yesteryear lives are Jim Cramer's fault.  People make their own decisions on who to trust, and if a commercial that claims Jim Cramer is god and should be trusted convinces you, then you have nobody to blame when you decide that 30 minutes of due diligence performed by sitting on a couch is adequate.

If you believed that sticking your money where Cramer's mouth is... or anyone on CNBC's for that matter... was the key to succeeding in the market, then you sir are a sucker, and I hope that I can find a way to take advantage of you one day.  As poker players and fans of the movie Rounders would say, "it's immoral to let a sucker keep his money."

29 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On March 13, 2009 at 12:26 PM, Chiownknee (81.42) wrote:

"Stewart, I think you're funny, well spoken, and quick witted.  But stop breeding ignorance by telling the American public that somehow their crappier-than-yesteryear lives are Jim Cramer's fault."

--

lol

I suggest that you watch the interview a little more carefully.

Thanks. 

Report this comment
#2) On March 13, 2009 at 12:37 PM, jmier (< 20) wrote:

Maybe you don't need CNBC to do your investigative journalism for you, but that's why everyone else turns to them, to get insight into the risks of the market.  It's one thing to say the market is risky, it's another to say, "You know this whole thing could collapse virtually overnight because its way over-leveraged."  Stewart's point was that normal people who have money to invest,  but are not necessarily savvy investors, were never given the complete picture of the risk by the very people who claim to do that.  Stewart was dead on in his attack and your comment that people should have known the risks misses the point of his story completely.  

Report this comment
#3) On March 13, 2009 at 12:43 PM, TLStockPicks (92.22) wrote:

Chiownknee:  I did. I just have better skills than you do at interpreting what was said.

Report this comment
#4) On March 13, 2009 at 12:48 PM, sabbadoo32 (< 20) wrote:

"And please cut CNBC a break for "failing" to "expose" the corruption and the failures and the imminent doom and gloom.  Um... who did?  It's easy now to sit back and say "well if anyone, it should've been CNBC."  But again... there wasn't anyone who had the information to make that conclusion."

 There are many people across the planet being paid to find, uncove, and write about wrong doing.  They're called journalists. Journalists have broken some of the most egregious crimes and scandals.  There was a time when we watched 60 Minutes to see scandals broken.  There are less of them these days, sadly.

No one had a sheet of paper with a list of contacts and what they were doing wrong.  But what did exist, given that a lot of financial journalists come from business-and they're generally smart, was enough knowledge that something was wrong.  Sprinkle in a little rumor and buzz, and it's hard to see how financial journalists and CNBC weren't able to tell us more about what catastrophes were coming.

A journalist could start digging to see if there's any reality to the murmurs.  If so, then there's a story.  If not, then there's confirmation that rumors are just that.

Stewart didn't lay the entire blame at Cramer's door. No one expects any stock picker to get it right all the time.  We read these blogs and watch these shows so we can learn information to steer us forward or warn us off. 

What you're not talking about is the footage where Cramer talks about how he manipulated markets in the past.  After the clip, Stewart said "can the Cramer on CNBC protect us from the Cramer in that clip?"  He was speaking to the industry, not to the man.

It is an intriguing observation though.  If Cramer knew how to do that then, he clearly has insight on what it looks like now.  Multiply that by the number of finacial journalists and their insight based on varied experiences, and the idea that no one saw this coming begins to lose its legitimacy.

To say that no one could have known beforehand is trying to get me to buy into your naievete.  I don't read you because you're naieve.  I read you because you are smart and insightful.  Which is it?

Report this comment
#5) On March 13, 2009 at 1:01 PM, TLStockPicks (92.22) wrote:

jmier, the risks IN GENERAL of investing are known. You don't need CNBC to tell you that. Investors have been told, if you want to play it safe, here is how. If you know you're not savvy, known your own faults and don't take the risk!

Over-leveraging could indicate the potential for a fast collapse, but it's far from saying "because Bear was leveraged 35-1 it will fail." Leverage is what brought those magnificient returns in the first place. Should CNBC have said that "leverage magnifies amplitude and therefore risk"? Maybe. But if they don't, should investors figure out THROUGH OTHER MEDIUMS the effects of leverage before making a decision? Definitely. If you did not understand what that meant, then you had no business being on the playing field.

There wasn't that deep meaning to Stewart's one-sided debate: the jist of his point was that CNBC is RESPONSIBLE for covering people's rear ends. I'm telling you, no... people need to cover their own. Don't blame CNBC for making it entertaining or making it seem fun. People are supposed to realize that when you put money into a hole and people have all along told you that it's risky; you can't blame "the voices" for telling you what to do when you lose it all.

Report this comment
#6) On March 13, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Madgear (< 20) wrote:

Absolutely nothing in this was Cramers fault.

1)He's not responsible for exposing the dark secrets of the market. Would it have helped if he did? sure. But he's catching flak for not having done it yet I seriously doubt stewart brings him on a give him a pat on the back if he did. Bad double standard.

2)He didn't pilfer your 401K's, want someone to be angry at? there are plenty of people I can recommend.

3)He gets paid to make picks and predicitons. Now, if they are in good faith or not is a whole other argument. If you don't do your DD's and just take his/anyone else's advice you can't whine when your money disappeares. 

4)If stewart had brought on Mary Schapiro who is the head of the SEC and asked her some tough questions on why she fell asleep at the wheel in a major way I'd have a lot more respect. Stick to comedy stewart..I know you and a lot of people are angry but direct the criticism in the right way.

Report this comment
#7) On March 13, 2009 at 1:12 PM, TLStockPicks (92.22) wrote:

sabbadoo,

There were indications that things could've gone wrong, you're right.  But you're wrong to assume that that means there was enough to conclude that something was about to go wrong or that it would go wrong.  The FACT that bear was leveraged 35-1 was laid out there by everybody.  The facts were there.  It was up to people to determine what that they meant.

Let's explore the opposite... what if CNBC raised a hoopla about some rumors (as you stated) concerning a company that was actually legitimately doing well down?  All of the sudden, this solid company gets dumped because of a rumor and CNBC's irresponsible conclusions drawn from a rumor, burning all the longs that were in it. 

Journalism is about fact finding.  Punditry is about opinion.  If you can't watch a show that tells you what to do with your money while discerning what are facts and what is opinion, then no amount of warnings that "Cramer sells snake oil" will have helped you.  CNBC has laid the facts out as they've discovered them.  The pundits are under no obligation to put it together the right way; they try, but they can and will again fail.

Report this comment
#8) On March 13, 2009 at 1:19 PM, TMFKris (93.33) wrote:

I agree with a lot of what TLStockPicks says about the Stewart/Cramer "show" that was put on last night. I wanted Cramer to say, "Yeah, it's a game!" But I suppose that's not good for overall business.

And Cramer seemed to be trying supremely serenely not to get tripped or triggered by Stewart's quick wit and iron adherence to his (Stewart's) message. Stewart was reciting what people have been saying for months, and can always fall back on saying "I'm just a comedian." 

Report this comment
#9) On March 13, 2009 at 1:27 PM, jimiGfoto (< 20) wrote:

C'mon Fool, You are as much the problem as is Cramer - your business isn't business, its pretending you know more about about business than others; and either you don't and never saw the intenet bubble, real estate bubble, or bank failure or you do and are complicent with the other crooks on Wall Street! You could watch Stewart over and over and still not get what he's saying because he has integrity and you, Fool, do not! Shame on all of you so called, "experts" who sat back and watched the country's economy get driven into the ground!

Report this comment
#10) On March 13, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Chiownknee (81.42) wrote:

"There wasn't that deep meaning to Stewart's one-sided debate: the jist of his point was that CNBC is RESPONSIBLE for covering people's rear ends. I'm telling you, no... people need to cover their own."

--

lol

Again, I suggest that you watch the interview a little more carefully.

Thanks.

Report this comment
#11) On March 13, 2009 at 1:36 PM, bostoncelitcs (40.35) wrote:

Dude......It's the fact that a lot of people put their money into stock "mutual funds" that are supposed to be professionally managed and lost bundles by traders "shorting" stocks held in those funds, driving their value into the ground while they made millions!!   Most people don't have the time to check their retirement portfolio on a daily basis and leave it to the professionals.......So I am taking Jon Stewarts position that CNBC and Wall St. were complicit in the economic crisis......and Rick Santelli should get with the program or move onto the FOX BUSINESS CHANNEL!!!  Regulations were removed by the Bush administration to allow this to happen!! ...Time for the traders to start......."GOING LONG"!!

Report this comment
#12) On March 13, 2009 at 1:37 PM, duncandonuts (< 20) wrote:

This blog posting is so off the point as to make one wonder whether the poster even watched the interview, as one of the other responders already suggested. The misuse of the word "risky" in this context is also particularly disinegenuous. If I play football, I know it's risky because I might get injured - but if I get maimed during the game because the other team cheat by having brass knuckledusters in their gloves, that's not the same kind of "risky" at all and to attempt to draw a simplistic parallel between these two situations is at the very least, ill-considered.

People expect and deserve to be able to invest in a stock market that is open, honest and fair and of course, there's always some risk involved. People do NOT expect or deserve to be crippled by a group of dishonest players who have covertly swung the game in their favor through a form of cheating that is going to cost  the honest players in the game very dearly.

The poster's argument that people knew what they were getting themselves into is l feel, lamentable in its lack of clarity, forethought or compassion for those who lost out. People are willing to accept the risk of the stock market for a fair game played on a level playing field and this is the point that Stewart was making. They have every right to be angry and distrustful towards the liars and cheats on the inside, who manipulated the market to their own ends and also towards the insiders who looked the other way because the rigged game suited them as well.

I think people also feel particularly angry at Cramer since he not only dabbled in these "shenanigans" himself and looked the other way when others did it, but he actually profited from all of this by presenting himself as a trusted voice, somebody who "had your back" and who could provide you with sound guidance in these troubled times.While it obviously cannot all be blamed on Cramer, he undoubtedly played a significant role in selling this rigged game to the American public as an honest deal, as something in which they could confidently entrust their retirement money, college funds, pensions etc.. Given all of this, the American public has every right to be angry about it and props to John Stewart for being a voice for the millions of ordinary people who had to surrended a lot of what they had worked for to a group of dishonest Wall Street insiders and the people who enabled them.

Report this comment
#13) On March 13, 2009 at 1:46 PM, sabbadoo32 (< 20) wrote:

TL,

Journalism usually involves confirming stories and sources.  Yes, the financial journalists could get it wrong and wrongly drive down stock prices.  People can cut corners.  But given the long established processes of writing and vetting a story, in a standard situation, I believe your scenario is an outlier.

CNBC is a business news network, which implies the use of journalism.  You are a pundit and a stock picker.  I understand the difference, but I still have quite a bit of expectations when it comes to accuracy and transparency.

Airing or writing stories on bad calls is not necessarily important.  Airing or writing multi-part stories on how the SEC has been an ineffective regulatory body would have been...helpful at the time.

Again, I'm not blaming Cramer for all of this, and neither is Stewart.  In the interview, Stewart finally drives it home that the discussion isn't really about Cramer.  Unfortunately he's the guy who has become the face of it.

BTW, punditry needs to become more like journalism.  We've elevated these "names" to brand status, and ignored any type of way to fact-check or monitor their accuracy.  Blogging has accelerated this.  Any nut, or not so nut with an opinion can say anything, and the reader "market" decides what's what.  This could result in excellent self selection. Or it could foster a groundswell behind a resurgence in the belief that the earth is flat.

Report this comment
#14) On March 13, 2009 at 2:00 PM, slagomite (< 20) wrote:

I'm glad that the author has clearly exposed himself as an irresponsible "blogger" whose writings are not worth my time.

Ad hominem attacks are "not tolerated in the CAPS community", and yet his initial response to Chiownknee's (albeit lacking-in-substance) comment was to say he has "better skills"??  Wow.

I'd also like to point out that the blurb on the "create account" page touts Motley Fool's "spin-free take on the market".  Strike two for the author.

I've been looking for an in-depth, OBJECTIVE report on last night's incident, still without any luck at all...

Report this comment
#15) On March 13, 2009 at 3:19 PM, TMFKris (93.33) wrote:

jimiGfoto: I am a copyeditor at the Fool, as my CAPS profile states, and I make no claim to having more investing or financial insight than an average investor.

You say "You could watch Stewart over and over and still not get what he's saying because he has integrity and you, Fool, do not!"

I do have integrity. I assume Jon Stewart does, too.

 

Report this comment
#16) On March 13, 2009 at 3:46 PM, rlin09 (< 20) wrote:

This post is exactly correct.  I couldn't agree more.  I have always liked Jon Stewart as well (and am not a big fan of Cramer) but Stewart was just being a populist last night.  I am starting to think that he should just stick to comedy.  Cramer does what he does, and anyone watching him should understand what he does.  He does spend an enormous amount of time trying to educate people about the market, and he should be commended for that.  Stewart was really just upset at Rick Santelli.  I actually though that what Santelli did was "ballsy" but in a good way.  Its always important to give a voice to those who are speaking out against convetional wisdom.  Stewart should know the importance of that.  He was one of the first to question the policies of George W. Bush in 2002 when most other journalists were being much more shy.

Again. Good post Fool! 

Report this comment
#17) On March 13, 2009 at 4:20 PM, TLStockPicks (92.22) wrote:

In response to angry mob posters 9-14:

chiownknee: You just have no clue, do you?

celtics: Dude, why did you have money in mutual funds instead of CDs or treasuries?  Oh yeah. Wanted to make that paper! 

raketemensch: Doesn't have a clue how to make an analogy.  Nobody's using brass knuckles.  You're just playing against people who lift more, watched more tape, read the rulebook cover to cover, and are twice as big as you.  Ah, there's the analogy you're looking for.  "People deserve and expect to invest in a stock market that is open, honest, and fair"?  Well, it IS open and honest...  But no, anytime you go into a battle armed with a slingshot, it's not fair.  It's not supposed to be fair.  It becomes fairer as you arm yourself better, but if you don't have the time or ability to do that, stick with the risk-free investments.  Or better yet, come back into the stock market and let those with uzis and bazookas tear you a new one.  Your whole third paragraph is dismissable, with the exception of one tidbit that is indeed true: my post lacks compassion.  But "poor baby" is not going to give you your money back or teach you a lesson into how the market really works and how risk adverse you really might be. And finally, what you describe about Cramer is exactly what it means to be in a capitalistic society.. (you know, the one that brought you the stock market?) There's actually a market created by our greed and laziness that pundits like Mr. Cramer, who yells and acts like a lunatic while telling you what to buy and what to sell, are actually taken seriously. 

sabadoo again: that scenario of news fueled by rumor was your own: "Sprinkle in a little rumor and buzz, and it's hard to see how financial journalists and CNBC weren't able to tell us more about what catastrophes were coming."  And my scenario is exactly what would've happened if CNBC did what you wanted which was to say "stay away from Bear" and if Bear in fact survived.  As for Cramer... Stewart blamed Cramer for 15 minutes and spent 2 saying he's not blaming him.  C'mon... even you should be able to see through that.

slagomite: "spin-free take"... if that's not an oxymoron, i don't know what is.  You, perhaps?  SORRY, was that an ad-hominem attack?  Sigh.  Argue about irrelevant matters when you disagree but can't really figure out why... yeah that's the way to go!

Jimi, on the other hand, is the most enlightened out of the bunch.  You get it.  You are 100% correct.  You understand how it works.  It's cynical and depressing, but it is what it is.  Nailed it on the head.  I want to hug you.  Now... will you trust us integrity-lacking finance people blindly anymore?  I sure hope not!

Stop blaming everyone else people.  Your 401(k)s and investments are down because you were greedy and lost a bet that you knew you could damn well lose.  Time to learn from it, saddle up, lock and load again.

Report this comment
#18) On March 13, 2009 at 5:18 PM, deesugar (< 20) wrote:

Stewart's point wasn't that we should blame the market failure on TV shows. His point was, if you run a serious financial news network stop going to bed with CEO's and everyone you interview. Get up and do real reporting. There used to be a time when news mattered and reporters did a fine job at what they did, now it's just a sad orgy of liars.

 How horribly wrong has this world come to when the only person we can turn to for reliable hard hitting news is a comedian on a comedy show?  Seriously, think about that for a sec. What's wrong with you news people?!?

Report this comment
#19) On March 13, 2009 at 5:41 PM, TLStockPicks (92.22) wrote:

I never said that Stewart accused CNBC for the market's failure.  What I said was that Stewart blamed CNBC for not warning us what was coming aka not covering our behinds with "investigative journalism."  My point is that pundits Stewart has picked on aren't there to be investigative journalists and that even if they were, they couldn't have done exposed anything.  The facts weren't there for them to make the conclusions that we now wanted them to have made.  It would have been just as irresponsible for them to draw a conclusion that something was wrong when they don't have anything solid to base that off of.  This is just a prime example of hindsight bias... except that they laid out the same facts that we quote now... the leverage statistic, etc... and they merely refused to connect those dots to upcoming implosion.  But that's not their job.  If you watch CNBC to make a decision, you should watch for the FACTS that they feed you and not for the crazy yelling guy's opinions about those facts. 

Report this comment
#20) On March 13, 2009 at 6:35 PM, sabbadoo32 (< 20) wrote:

You go Fool! 

I'm sure you won't lose sleep knowing the rest of the country doesn't agree.

Report this comment
#21) On March 13, 2009 at 8:47 PM, masterN17 (< 20) wrote:

I understand your defense of Cramer and it has merit.  But your words so far do not explain to me the fundamental dishonesty that Stewart is attacking, which is:

Why did Jim Cramer, as a hedge fund manager, intentionally spread misinformation regarding companies in order to improve his positions on his holdings?  And how can we know which talking heads are engaging in manipulative behavior and which are not?

I am surprised no one else could think of bringing up this question to you before.  I had to sign up for an account just to do this.  So please consider and let me know.  Thank you.

Report this comment
#22) On March 14, 2009 at 8:58 AM, TLStockPicks (92.22) wrote:

masterN17

Why did he do it?  Because that's what he gets paid to do... play the game better than everyone else, within the rules.  Nobody's saying it's not a gray area, but it's done every day on the market.  It (usually) isn't like the rumors being spread by these people are what you think... like "XYZ company is on the brink of bankruptcy!!!" because out-of-nowhere rumors don't get enough price movement... it's usually something as simple as the investment house issuing a downgrade on a company due to weakness they see in widget sales due to some bs reason.  A lot of times when analysts make upgrade/downgrades, you'll see commentary about whether that firm is long/short that particular stock, and that can help you decide whether it's truly an unbiased call or not; sometimes you'll see analysts.  Almost every big player works in a manipulative behavior to some degree... a lot of times just because of the sheer volume they HAVE to buy and sell at.  If they dabble in a thinly traded stock, even an innocent legitimate buy or sale creates a long vertical line on the charts, which can trigger those automatic limit transactions people have lined up.

To answer your question about which talking heads are engaging in such behavior (spreading misleading information) it really could be anybody; I'm willing to put money on the fact that 99.99999% of all journalists want to get it right and don't try to give out misleading rumors.  But why do people watch CNBC?  If they wanted P/E ratios, PR feeds, etc, they could find that elsewhere.  People watch CNBC sometimes FOR the rumors... FOR that slight advantage.  And when a reporter gains wind of something he thinks is credible, he'll do some fact checking, and if nothing contradicts that assertion (which is not the same as proving) he's under incredible pressure to give that information out.  So what I'm saying is that most of the talking heads don't mean to do it... but eventually, because it's what we watch them for and what they get paid for, any of them can let one or two rumors fly.  Just keep in mind the difference between what they represent as fact and their own opinion... they're allowed to get opinions wrong.  The problem is when they get the facts wrong... and even then, you usually can't blame them.

Report this comment
#23) On March 14, 2009 at 8:59 AM, TLStockPicks (92.22) wrote:

masterN17

Why did he do it?  Because that's what he gets paid to do... play the game better than everyone else, within the rules.  Nobody's saying it's not a gray area, but it's done every day on the market.  It (usually) isn't like the rumors being spread by these people are what you think... like "XYZ company is on the brink of bankruptcy!!!" because out-of-nowhere rumors don't get enough price movement... it's usually something as simple as the investment house issuing a downgrade on a company due to weakness they see in widget sales due to some bs reason.  A lot of times when analysts make upgrade/downgrades, you'll see commentary about whether that firm is long/short that particular stock, and that can help you decide whether it's truly an unbiased call or not; sometimes you'll see analysts.  Almost every big player works in a manipulative behavior to some degree... a lot of times just because of the sheer volume they HAVE to buy and sell at.  If they dabble in a thinly traded stock, even an innocent legitimate buy or sale creates a long vertical line on the charts, which can trigger those automatic limit transactions people have lined up.

To answer your question about which talking heads are engaging in such behavior (spreading misleading information) it really could be anybody; I'm willing to put money on the fact that 99.99999% of all journalists want to get it right and don't try to give out misleading rumors.  But why do people watch CNBC?  If they wanted P/E ratios, PR feeds, etc, they could find that elsewhere.  People watch CNBC sometimes FOR the rumors... FOR that slight advantage.  And when a reporter gains wind of something he thinks is credible, he'll do some fact checking, and if nothing contradicts that assertion (which is not the same as proving) he's under incredible pressure to give that information out.  So what I'm saying is that most of the talking heads don't mean to do it... but eventually, because it's what we watch them for and what they get paid for, any of them can let one or two rumors fly.  Just keep in mind the difference between what they represent as fact and their own opinion... they're allowed to get opinions wrong.  The problem is when they get the facts wrong... and even then, you usually can't blame them.

Report this comment
#24) On March 14, 2009 at 9:05 AM, VinnieFromIndy (< 20) wrote:

If this is the type of thinking that is generally accepted at the Motley Fool, I urge all readers to run for the hills. This writer is either woefully ignorant of the issues involved or he is actively trying to spin the truth.

The fact is that Cramer was cold busted admitting ON CAMERA that he ILLEGALLY manipulated the market as a hedge fund manager.

Stewart's public ass whupping of Cramer only took place because Cramer is an idiot par excellence for provoking Stewart after Stewart exposed the rot and corruption at CNBC. The real public service performed by Stewart is his expose of CNBC as nothing more than a PR outlet used by CEOs and Corporations to LIE to Americans.

In the end, Stewart's message was that American media is broken and corrupt and it has been used to manipulate and lie to millions of hard-working folks. Santelli and the rest of the CNBC viper pit, until Stewart's expose, were in the process of attacking Obama's recovery plan. Only investigations by the SEC, DOJ and Congress might fully reveal the complicity of CNBC and it's on-air personalities in manipulating the market these past years.

I find it grotesque that this blog can only blame the ignorant viewer of CNBC for not realizing they were playing in a FIXED game.

I find the reasoning and information offered by the OP to be worth a bucket of warm spit. Fool indeed! 

Report this comment
#25) On March 14, 2009 at 9:33 AM, sabbadoo32 (< 20) wrote:

You've done a fine job defending a network and an information system that does more cheerleading than reportin.  Is that all we can reasonably expect?

CNBC/Business Media (BM) isn't for the masses, it's for the business audience.  Stock pickers shoulnd't get maligned for every pick, because no one gets it completely right.  There's no way CNBC /BM could have told us about Bear, etc despite all their wisdom and inside information on how things really work. Plus, they could have been wrong. Lastly, the market is dark and greedy place not for everyone.

So how can the largest business journalism network in the country and business media in general use it's resources to better vet the information we see and read? 

How can they dig deeper investigatively, and find the balance between fact and rumor to uncover wrongdoing?  Should they, as it could be an influence on stock price?

Even with tight budgets and watered down resources, the rest of the news media seems to be able to break something of importance.  Many of these stories initially have elements of everything you say business media shouldn't write about.

Is our current business media model fine?  If not, how would you fix it?  You're an opinion leader.... let's hear some opinioning.

Report this comment
#26) On March 14, 2009 at 9:45 AM, PrestonCheek (32.44) wrote:

TL I think more thinking like yours would help us out, blunt and to the point. To much bullsh!t out there today.

Report this comment
#27) On March 15, 2009 at 5:54 PM, invsetorduck (< 20) wrote:

It sounds as if you feel, predictably, that Cramer's outing reveals this very websites complicity in this "game".  It's one thing to know the risks genius, it's another thing to be lied to, and gamed by a system we are all told to put our money into.

It pisses me off to hear you write this, tell us we all deserve it for our greed, tell us "duh! the system is rigged".  My conservative 401k had Citi, AIG, GS as well as a diversified conglumeration of other stocks, as I was advised by Edward Jones-- now im 30% down... fine.  But don't tell me I was greedy and deserve it dumbass!  Was I supposed to have the books of CITI readily available to me, was I supposed to personally interview the CEO and know he was lying, was I supposed to understand AIG's business model, you didn't?

You are a buffon on the level of Cramer, telling us the intricatly fabricated crap the media has fed us should have no impact.  I went to a great school, have a masters degree and feel dumbed by all this, and to hear morons like you pontificate we are all just uneducated buffoons, well I hope when and all of your money is taken and you are lefted finicially wrecked because,"not everyone's out there looking out for your best interest... we aren't all holding hands collectively trying to get rich at the same time"... who the hell you going to turn to, another D/A telling me I should have known better, what were you reporting genius?

Report this comment
#28) On March 15, 2009 at 6:20 PM, zzlangerhans (99.80) wrote:

TL, have you noticed most of the people criticizing you are CAPS "Zombies" with no picks who contribute nothing to the community? I have a policy of not responding to anyone on a pitch or blog who has no picks, otherwise this is nothing more than a supplement to Yahoo Message Boards. Chiownknee is a stock picking disaster who continues to green thumb dubious companies in a horrendous bear market. Perhaps he should start listening to Cramer more. Please ignore, ignore, ignore. CAPS should not be allowing non-players to respond to blogs and pollute the discussion.

Report this comment
#29) On March 16, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Chiownknee (81.42) wrote:

"Chiownknee is a stock picking disaster who continues to green thumb dubious companies in a horrendous bear market. Perhaps he should start listening to Cramer more. Please ignore, ignore, ignore. CAPS should not be allowing non-players to respond to blogs and pollute the discussion."

--

lol

What does any of this gibberish in italics above have to do with the fact that the OP should consider watching the interview a little more closely?

Thank you, come again.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement