Thursday, March 12, 2009

Jon 'n' Jim

I just rewatched tonight's Daily Show on which Jon Stewart...well, I started to type that he "spanked" Jim Cramer but that's not quite accurate. What he did was to give the financial news industry a civil and well-deserved scolding...and Cramer wound up agreeing with most of it.

It reminded me what I like so much about Stewart's interviews. I can't think of another person who just talks with his guests on such a one-on-one basis. I don't always agree with the guy but he seems sincere and thoughtful...and also disinterested in grandstanding. He talks to people — not at them, not down to them — and doesn't let his guests get away with pre-planned rote answers. Who else has ever had the kind of discussion that he had tonight with Jim Cramer?

A couple of e-mailers who watched the show told me they thought Cramer's career was over; that he'd committed professional suicide by grovelling before Stewart instead of getting into a slapfight with him. I think that's wrong. Cramer's not dumb enough to think that the old "act" is still viable and therefore worth defending. He and his peers have shilled too long for the CEOs and the lower-grade Bernie Madoffs. The jig on that is up and he oughta be glad that Jon Stewart has given him the chance to do a public mea culpa, pledge to reform and try to grab onto the new dynamic. I got the feeling the whole field of financial news reporting changed a little tonight...and for the better.

Some websites are reporting that the Stewart-Cramer interview had to be trimmed for time and that the full version, which is eight minutes longer, will be available on the web tomorrow. I'll embed it here when it is.

• Posted at 11:09 PM · LINK

Go Read It!

Bernie Madoff's confession.

• Posted at 8:35 PM · LINK

Highly Recommended Viewing

Just watched The Daily Show — the face-off between Jon Stewart and Jim Cramer. Watch it. Then watch it again. Stewart tells Cramer why his network is inept and does it so well that Cramer has no choice but to agree.

• Posted at 8:29 PM · LINK

Today's Video Link

Stan Lee in conversation with Michael Eisner...

• Posted at 6:31 PM · LINK

Seer Suckers

A couple of people seem not to have grasped what I was trying to say about this Jim Cramer controversy...and by the way, that skirmish is fast turning from a legitimate debate into a cable TV crossover stunt. I don't think it was premeditated in that sense but that's what it's become.

My point was not that pundits make mistakes or get predictions wrong. Everyone does, self included, and we all understand that. It's that you can achieve a stunning level of wrongness on TV and people don't seem to notice. I saw another version of this in the early eighties when I was working on That's Incredible! We were bombarded with approaches from folks who claimed to be able to predict the future via psychic vision or other paranormal means. Most were making a very good living selling, in one way or another, their prognostications...and of course, an appearance on ABC TV would have boosted that income through the skylight.

I happen to not believe in psychic powers or chatting with the dead or anything of the sort...and if I ever did, exposure to these people would have convinced me not only that it was hokum but that most of them knew that. Some, off-camera, seemed to no more think they could read minds than Penn and Teller think they really catch bullets in their respective teeth...and of course, there was zero guilt about the many (and some had many) out there who believed in the alleged psychic's ability, paid well for counsel and adjusted their lives based on what they heard. Some self-proclaimed clairvoyants, of course, did believe in their own abilities, having not only deluded others but themselves, as well.

You could understand how some got away with it. Through a combination of lucky guesses, careful phrasing and logical deduction, they could cite some "visions" that had come to pass...and that was really all it took: Some. The batting averages seemed to not matter. Five accurate predictions out of ten can be somewhat impressive. It's not proof of psychic ability, especially when two of the five are pretty vaguely worded and two more are occurrences anyone could have foreseen...but it didn't seem that odd that the "5 out of 10" psychics had substantial followings. What amazed me was that the "5 out of 200 (or more)" psychics had clients and devotees, as well.

All that seemed necessary was that you had folks who yearned to believe, that they were being told what they wanted to hear and that every so often, you were right about something. If they could get that, they'd ignore all the misses, no matter how numerous. That's kind of how it works too often with experts and pundits on TV. Being right once in a while is enough.

• Posted at 3:47 PM · LINK