Jim Cramer Backtracks, Calls Stewart "Naive & Misleading".

Thu, Mar 19, 2009 1:15pm ET

After admitting culpability during Daily Show interview, Cramer now calls Stewart's criticism of CNBC "Naïve and misleading"

Summary: On Today, Jim Cramer asserted of Daily Show host Jon Stewart that "It was a naïve and misleading thing to attack the media" for their coverage of the economic recession, just one week after acknowledging that CNBC's reporting deserved criticism during an appearance on The Daily Show.

During the March 19 edition of NBC's Today, Jim Cramer, host of CNBC's Mad Money, asserted of Daily Show The Daily Show. host Jon Stewart that "It was a naïve and misleading thing to attack the media" for their coverage of the economic recession, just one week after acknowledging that CNBC's reporting deserved criticism during an appearance on the Daily Show.

According to Reuters, following Stewart's interview of Cramer, NBC Universal chief executive Jeff Zucker reportedly attacked Stewart over his criticism of CNBC in his March 18 keynote address at the McGraw-Hill Media Summit in New York. According to Reuters, Zucker called Stewart "unfair," "absurd," and "completely out of line." Additionally, according to mediabistro.com's TVNewser blog, an unnamed "tipster" said that MSNBC executives were asked not to air the Stewart interview in their programming the day following Cramer's Daily Show appearance.

On Today, co-host Meredith Vieira stated that Stewart accused Cramer and CNBC of being "cheerleaders for the financial bubble; that you also had allowed CEOs to come on the shows and essentially lie to the American public without really challenging them." Viera then asked: "I don't want to rehash the whole thing, but did he have a point?" Cramer responded, "I don't think so." He later said that "It was a naïve and misleading thing to attack the media. We -- we weren't behind this. CNBC, in particular, has been out front on this." During the interview, Vieira asked: "So, you don't think the media bears any responsibility, Jim?" Cramer responded:

CRAMER: I think that there are people who bear so much more responsibility that it's just wrong-headed -- the politicians, the regulators, the SEC, the lenders, the investment banks. I mean, listen to AIG. I mean, you're going to compare the media to AIG? There's some people who really should get in line to do -- to really take the responsibility. And the media, it's just a naïve focus. It really is, Meredith.

However, during his March 12 appearance on The Daily Show, Cramer asserted: "I think that everyone could come in under criticism because we all should have seen it more." Cramer continued: "{A}dmittedly, this is a terrible one, and everybody got it wrong. I got a lot of things wrong, because I think it was kind of a one-in-a-million shot. But I don't think anyone should be spared in this environment." Cramer also stated of CNBC that "we're fair game. We're a big network. We've been out front and we've made mistakes."

From the March 19 edition of NBC's Today:

VIEIRA: OK, before I let you go, Jim, this is your first appearance here since the appearance on Jon Stewart's show?

CRAMER: You noticed?

VIEIRA: I noticed -- I noticed that. He was tough on you. You've had a rough week -- he was very tough on you, very tough on CNBC -- basically said that you guys had been cheerleaders for the financial bubble; that you also had allowed CEOs to come on the shows and essentially lie to the American public without really challenging them. I don't want to rehash the whole thing, but did he have a point?

CRAMER: I don't think so. I think --

VIEIRA: Not on any of this?

CRAMER: Well, I think it was a naïve and misleading thing to attack the media. We -- we weren't behind this. CNBC, in particular, has been out front on this. [CNBC senior economics reporter] Steve Liesman broke the first big, big subprime story. [CNBC anchor and reporter] David Faber did the best work that I've seen of any journalist -- print. [CNBC host] Erin [Burnett] has been at the forefront; talked about it so much we used to joke about, "Erin, how often are you going to talk about subprime?"

VIEIRA: So, you don't think the media bears any responsibility, Jim?

CRAMER: I think that there are people who bear so much more responsibility that it's just wrong-headed -- the politicians, the regulators, the SEC, the lenders, the investment banks. I mean, listen to AIG. I mean, you're going to compare the media to AIG? There's some people who really should get in line to do -- to really take the responsibility. And the media, it's just a naïve focus. It really is, Meredith.

VIEIRA: OK, and at the end of the interview you said you were going to try harder in terms of talking to the American public. What did you mean by that?

CRAMER: I think everyone has to. This is a crisis where everybody has to re-examine -- you know, that was an attempt, as it was throughout the interview, to take a high road, which I was brought up to think was a good thing to do, and to go in for a discussion. Sometimes high roads aren't well greeted in the media, but I believe that you should always try to do better. I think that that's kind of the fundamentals of what we all as journalists try to do.

VIEIRA: Jim Cramer, thank you very much. Erin Burnett as well.

From the March 12 edition of Comedy Central's The Daily Show with Jon Stewart:

STEWART: Let me just explain to you very quickly one thing that I think is somewhat misinterpreted: This was not directed at you, per se. I just want to let you know that. We threw some banana cream pies at CNBC; you got a little, obviously, schmutz on your jacket from it, took exception.

CRAMER: I think that everyone could come in under criticism --

STEWART: Right.

CRAMER: -- because we all should have seen it more. I mean, admittedly, this is a terrible one, and everybody got it wrong. I got a lot of things wrong, because I think it was kind of a one-in-a-million shot. But I don't think anyone should be spared in this environment.

STEWART: So then, if I may, why were you mad at us?

CRAMER: No --

STEWART: Because I was under the impression that you thought we were being unfair.

CRAMER: No, you had my friend [New York Times business columnist] Joe Nocera on, and Joe called me and said, "Jim, do I need to apologize to you?" I said, "No, we're fair game. We're a big network. We've been out front and we've made mistakes. We've got 17 hours of live TV a day to do." But I certainly --

STEWART: Maybe you could cut down on that. We're going to go away. We're gonna come right back with Jim Cramer, right after this. —T.A.

LET THE REVOLUTION BEGIN!

Thanks for all you do!
Live your values. Love your country.
And, remember: TOGETHER, We can make a DIFFERENCE!

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

FAIR Study: Media Blackout on Single-Payer Healthcare

March 6. 2009.
Proponents of popular policy shut out of debate.

Major newspaper, broadcast and cable stories mentioning healthcare reform in the week leading up to President Barack Obama's March 5 healthcare summit rarely mentioned the idea of a single-payer national health insurance program, according to a new FAIR study. And advocates of such a system--two of whom participated in yesterday's summit--were almost entirely shut out, FAIR found.

Single-payer--a model in which healthcare delivery would remain largely private, but would be paid for by a single federal health insurance fund (much like Medicare provides for seniors, and comparable to Canada's current system)--polls well with the public, who preferred it two-to-one over a privatized system in a recent survey (New York Times/CBS, 1/11-15/09). But a media consumer in the week leading up to the summit was more likely to read about single-payer from the hostile perspective of conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer than see an op-ed by a single-payer advocate in a major U.S. newspaper.

Over the past week, hundreds of stories in major newspapers and on NBC News, ABC News, CBS News, Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, NPR and PBS's NewsHour With Jim Lehrer mentioned healthcare reform, according to a search of the Nexis database (2/25/09-3/4/09). Yet all but 18 of these stories made no mention of "single-payer" (or synonyms commonly used by its proponents, such as "Medicare for all," or the proposed single-payer bill, H.R. 676), and only five included the views of advocates of single-payer--none of which appeared on television.

Of a total of 10 newspaper columns FAIR found that mentioned single-payer, Krauthammer's syndicated column critical of the concept, published in the Washington Post (2/27/09) and reprinted in four other daily newspapers, accounted for five instances. Only three columns in the study period advocated for a single-payer system (San Diego Union-Tribune, 2/26/09; Boston Globe, 3/1/09; St. Petersburg Times, 3/3/09).

The FAIR study turned up only three mentions of single-payer on the TV outlets surveyed, and two of those references were by TV guests who expressed strong disapproval of it: conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks (NewsHour, 2/27/09) and Republican congressman Darrell Issa (MSNBC's Hardball, 2/26/09).

In many newspapers, the only argument in favor of the policy has been made in letters to the editor (Oregonian, 2/28/09; USA Today, 2/26/09; Washington Post, 3/4/09; Philadelphia Inquirer, 2/27/09; Atlanta Journal Constitution, 2/26/09).

In contrast, the terminology of choice for detractors of any greater public-sector role in healthcare--such as "socialized medicine" and "government-run" healthcare--turned up seven times on TV, including once on ABC News's This Week (3/1/09) and five times on CNN. CNN senior medical correspondent Elizabeth Cohen has herself adopted this terminology in discussing healthcare reform, stating (CNN Newsroom, 2/26/09) that "if in time, Americans start to think what President Obama is proposing is some kind of government-run health system--a la Canada, a la England--he will get resistance in the same way that Hillary Clinton got resistance when she tried to do tried to do this in the '90s."

Particularly in the absence of actual coverage of single-payer, such rhetoric confuses rather than informs, blurring the differences between the Canadian model of government-administered national health insurance coupled with private healthcare delivery that single-payer proponents advocate, and healthcare systems such as Britain's, in which healthcare (and not just healthcare insurance) is administered by the government.

The views of CNN's senior medical correspondent notwithstanding, opinion polling (e.g., ABC News/Washington Post, 10/9-19/03) suggests that the public would actually favor single-payer.

Though more than 60 lawmakers have co-sponsored H.R. 676, the single-payer bill in Congress, Obama has not expressed support for single-payer; both the idea and its advocates were marginalized in yesterday's healthcare forum. But given the high level of popular support the policy enjoys, that's all the more reason media should include it in the public debate about the future of healthcare.

See FAIR's Archives for more on: Health and Healthcare

LET THE REVOLUTION BEGIN!

Thanks for all you do!
Live your values. Love your country.
And, remember: TOGETHER, We can make a DIFFERENCE!

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Broadcasting pioneer Paul Harvey dies at age of 90.

CHICAGO – Paul Harvey, the news commentator and talk-radio pioneer whose staccato style made him one of the nation's most familiar voices, died Saturday in Arizona, according to ABC Radio Networks. He was 90.

Harvey died surrounded by family at a hospital in Phoenix, where he had a winter home, said Louis Adams, a spokesman for ABC Radio Networks, where Harvey worked for more than 50 years. No cause of death was immediately available.

Harvey had been forced off the air for several months in 2001 because of a virus that weakened a vocal cord. But he returned to work in Chicago and was still active as he passed his 90th birthday. His death comes less than a year after that of his wife and longtime producer, Lynne.

"My father and mother created from thin air what one day became radio and television news," Paul Harvey Jr. said in a statement. "So in the past year, an industry has lost its godparents and today millions have lost a friend."

Known for his resonant voice and trademark delivery of "The Rest of the Story," Harvey had been heard nationally since 1951, when he began his "News and Comment" for ABC Radio Networks.

He became a heartland icon, delivering news and commentary with a distinctive Midwestern flavor. "Stand by for news!" he told his listeners. He was credited with inventing or popularizing terms such as "skyjacker," "Reaganomics" and "guesstimate."

"Paul Harvey was one of the most gifted and beloved broadcasters in our nation's history," ABC Radio Networks President Jim Robinson said in a statement. "We will miss our dear friend tremendously and are grateful for the many years we were so fortunate to have known him."

In 2005, Harvey was one of 14 notables chosen as recipients of the presidential Medal of Freedom. He also was an inductee in the Radio Hall of Fame, as was Lynne.

Former President George W. Bush remembered Harvey as a "friendly and familiar voice in the lives of millions of Americans."

"His commentary entertained, enlightened, and informed," Bush said in a statement. "Laura and I are pleased to have known this fine man, and our thoughts and prayers are with his family."

Harvey composed his twice-daily news commentaries from a downtown Chicago office near Lake Michigan.

Rising at 3:30 each morning, he ate a bowl of oatmeal, then combed the news wires and spoke with editors across the country in search of succinct tales of American life for his program.

At the peak of his career, Harvey reached more than 24 million listeners on more than 1,200 radio stations and charged $30,000 to give a speech. His syndicated column was carried by 300 newspapers.

His fans identified with his plainspoken political commentary, but critics called him an out-of-touch conservative. He was an early supporter of the late Sen. Joseph McCarthy and a longtime backer of the Vietnam War.

Perhaps Harvey's most famous broadcast came in 1970, when he abandoned that stance, announcing his opposition to President Nixon's expansion of the war and urging him to get out completely.

"Mr. President, I love you ... but you're wrong," Harvey said, shocking his faithful listeners and drawing a barrage of letters and phone calls, including one from the White House.

In 1976, Harvey began broadcasting his anecdotal descriptions of the lives of famous people. "The Rest of the Story" started chronologically, with the person's identity revealed at the end. The stories were an attempt to capture "the heartbeats behind the headlines." Much of the research and writing was done by his son, Paul Jr.

Harvey also blended news with advertising, a line he said he crossed only for products he trusted.

In 2000, at age 82, he signed a new 10-year contract with ABC Radio Networks.

Harvey was born Paul Harvey Aurandt in Tulsa, Okla. His father, a police officer, was killed when he was a toddler. A high school teacher took note of his distinctive voice and launched him on a broadcast career.

While working at St. Louis radio station KXOK, he met Washington University graduate student Lynne Cooper. He proposed on their first date (she said "no") and always called her "Angel." They were married in 1940 and had a son, Paul Jr.

They worked closely together on his shows, and he often credited his success to her influence. She was inducted into the Radio Hall of Fame in 1997, seven years after her husband was. She died in May 2008.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

On the Net:

http://www.paulharvey.com

http://www.radiohof.org/news/paulharvey.html

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

LET THE REVOLUTION BEGIN!

Thanks for all you do!
Live your values. Love your country.
And, remember: TOGETHER, We can make a DIFFERENCE!

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Big Media: Is Journalism DEAD?

The journalism profession is in crisis, where every week brings another bleak announcement.

The situation looks dire for the mainstream media industry, particularly for newspaper companies. Tribune Company, the third-largest newspaper chain in the nation and owner of 23 TV stations, declared bankruptcy. Gannett, the largest newspaper chain in the country, announced it was slashing 2,000 jobs. Scripps put a "for sale" sign on The Rocky Mountain News, and the Miami Herald is reportedly on the block.

As reported in another blog post in November, the newspaper industry has slashed more than 10 percent of its work force since 2000. And according to the running tally at the blog paper cuts, more than 15,000 newspaper positions have been eliminated through layoffs or buyouts in 2008

The crisis in the media industry mirrors why our financial system is a mess. Big corporations pressured the government to deregulate industries. Companies got even bigger through mergers, controlling the major institutions that impact our lives with little oversight, facing less competition and refusing to innovate. Instead, companies obsessed over profit margins to please Wall Street while failing to serve the public interest. As these companies take on greater debt, they can't pay back their loans — and workers get the ax.

Profits vs. the Public

It is true that profit margins have shrunk for some media companies, and the larger financial crisis undoubtedly impacts advertising. The Internet has changed the public's media habits. But most media companies remain extremely profitable, just not profitable enough to please Wall Street. (Some papers in the now-gutted Gannett chain enjoy profit margins above 40 percent.)

"We know that newspapers are making money – just not the astronomical profits of the 1990s," the National Association of Black Journalists said in a Dec. 5 press statement. "NABJ is reminding media companies of their sacred trust, which is more than the bottom-line. Never mind that media companies provide a private trust."

The crisis has revealed how little media executives care about journalism or serving the public's news and informational needs. It has also revealed how the government has utterly failed across party lines to protect the public by allowing for greater consolidation.

"As great newspapers, magazines, TV networks, and publishing houses dismember themselves around us, it would be marginally consoling if the pink slips were going to those who contributed so vigorously to their companies' accelerating demise," said Tina Brown in a post at the Daily Beast.

What Can Be Done?

Even though there is much to criticize about mainstream media, our nation needs the important work performed by journalists. The vast majority of journalists are motivated by the noble mission to keep the public informed about the world they live in.

But the current media crisis demonstrates that our nation's reliance on corporate-funded journalism is failing us. While bloggers and online news sites are stepping in to fill the gaping hole left by the crash of our mainstream media, few can afford to fund long-term investigative journalism. As a result, fewer journalists are covering the critical institutions that affect us all, leaving the public more uniformed and vulnerable.

Now, more than ever, we need to roll back media consolidation. We need to make a greater investment in public and community media. And we need to figure out and support the models — private and public, corporate and independent, online and off, professional and amateur, local and international — that give us the news we need to hold our leaders accountable.

We also need to finally recognize that our media system is the result of policies and politics. Just like the weak-kneed watchdogs at the SEC and Treasury stood by as subprime lending and "credit default swaps" sank our economy, the public servants entrusted with the airwaves cheered deregulation as local voices and viewpoints were crushed by the now-tottering media behemoths.

It didn't have to be this way. And the next time the Zells and Gannetts come to Washington seeking special favors and massive giveaways, we ought to remember how we got into this mess. Too much "regulation" wasn't the problem...

LET THE REVOLUTION BEGIN!

Thanks for all you do!
Live your values. Love your country.
And, remember: TOGETHER, We can make a DIFFERENCE!

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.