Greenwald: "There's nothing unique about Jim Cramer"...

[BlooInBloo]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/03/13/cramer/

STEWART: But what is the responsibility of the people who cover Wall Street? . . . . I'm under the assumption, and maybe this is purely ridiculous, but I'm under the assumption that you don't just take their word at face value. That you actually then go around and try to figure it out (applause).

That's the heart of the (completely justifiable) attack on Cramer and CNBC by Stewart. They would continuously put scheming CEOs on their shows, conduct completely uncritical "interviews" and allow them to spout wholesale falsehoods. And now that they're being called upon to explain why they did this, their excuse is: Well, we were lied to. What could we have done? And the obvious answer, which Stewart repeatedly expressed, is that people who claim to be "reporters" are obligated not only to provide a forum for powerful people to make claims, but also to then investigate those claims and then to inform the public if the claims are true. That's about as basic as it gets.

Just to toot my own horn a little, note also that Greenwald remembers his articles as well as yours truly does:

The only other occasion when media stars were forced to address these criticisms was when Bush's own Press Secretary, Scott McClellan, wrote a book accusing the American media of being "too deferential" to the administration. In response, Russert's replacement, David Gregory, twice insisted that the criticisms directed at the press for the role they played in the run-up to the war are baseless and misguided -- most recently in an interview with Stephen Colbert (after defending the media's pre-war behavior, Gregory was promoted by NBC to his Meet the Press position). When defending the media's behavior, Gregory echoed exactly the defining mentality of Jim Cramer: pointing out when officials are lying is "not our role," said Gregory.

Compare with: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=5245669#5245828

(Yes, mine came out first. No, I'm not Greenwald.)

:P


EDIT: Forgot primary linky.

[depakid]

1. "allow them to spout wholesale falsehoods."

This is a critical difference between the American and Australian media.

As a general rule, Aussie Journo's don't have much tolerance for those who repeatedly lie to them and play them for fools- and aren't inclined to give undue deference to their interviewees- whether they're poli's or business people.

That in turn is refected in the Austalian people and society. And visa versa.

Americans on the other hand seem to have gained a tolerance- or an expectation that they're to be lied to and played for fools. And that they, in turn ought to lie and play others for fools. Kind of a learned helplessness sort of thing- promoted in no small part by irresponsible media deregulation and the corrupting influence of unbridled money in politics.

[BlooInBloo]

2. Size (both pop and geo) has a lot to do with that, I would imagine.

[depakid]

4. More of a cultural difference

Which of course is reflected and reinforced in the media.

Two concepts sum it up:

Fair Dinkum; and

A Fair Go.

Somewhere along the way, Americans seem to have lost track of those notions.

[3waygeek]

5. Maybe that explains why Rupert Murdoch left Oz for the US n/t

[depakid]

6. Don't know about that- he's certainly not popular or respected down under

(even if his mother is).

Take someone like Kerry O'Brien or Tony Jones. These are honest hard hitting journos who rake both the government and the opposition (or whomever) over the coals during interviews. They actually provide insight and analysis and intelligently and concisely call out bullshit.

They'd have long since been fired in the states. Or denied any access. In Oz- you can try to avoid them, but if you do- you look cowardly. Like John Howard did.

[FreakinDJ]

3. Cramer needs an Unemployment check

[Mike 03]

7. Also, these folks make their money executing stock transactions. It's not like

they are trying to protect someone else's interest, exclusively. They are trying to protect their own interests. Market buying and selling puts money in the pockets of all these people.

[creeksneakers2]

8. Excellent article

with a well researched expose of how AIPAC scuttled the Freeman appointment while leaving no fingerprints.