Man, John Stewart destroying CNBC's credibility as a financial news and opinion source was glorious.
My girlfriend, who literally watches CNBC all day for her job, is really really pissed off about that segment.
Stewart took a lot of stuff completely out of context and cherry-picked the stupidest stuff from CNBC to generalize about the legitimacy of the entire network.
For example, the woman interviewing Thain in the snow—her supposedly brown-nosing quote was very probably skeptical. Stewart's guest claims CNBC doesn't differentiate between anchors and commentators, which apparently is not true at all. The Ponzi scheme interview was played over and over again on CNBC immediately after they realized it was a Ponzi scheme.
Even Jim Cramer—who on the network is acknowledged as a kind of crackpot—actually did warn about the looming financial crisis in his famous "YOU HAVE NO IDEA" meltdown. And CNBC has plenty of rational and skeptical anchors who rebut the bogus bullshit spewed by people like Santelli and Cramer.
Now, I do not watch CNBC. But Stewart was cherry-picking, and I think it's irresponsible to dismiss an entire 24-hour network on the basis of 8 minutes of mostly out of context clips.
You're whipped.
Let me elaborate.
You've been using your girlfriend's opinion as fact throughout this thread without any independent research of your own.
Man, John Stewart destroying CNBC's credibility as a financial news and opinion source was glorious.
My girlfriend, who literally watches CNBC all day for her job, is really really pissed off about that segment.
Stewart took a lot of stuff completely out of context and cherry-picked the stupidest stuff from CNBC to generalize about the legitimacy of the entire network.
For example, the woman interviewing Thain in the snow—her supposedly brown-nosing quote was very probably skeptical. Stewart's guest claims CNBC doesn't differentiate between anchors and commentators, which apparently is not true at all. The Ponzi scheme interview was played over and over again on CNBC immediately after they realized it was a Ponzi scheme.
Even Jim Cramer—who on the network is acknowledged as a kind of crackpot—actually did warn about the looming financial crisis in his famous "YOU HAVE NO IDEA" meltdown. And CNBC has plenty of rational and skeptical anchors who rebut the bogus bullshit spewed by people like Santelli and Cramer.
Now, I do not watch CNBC. But Stewart was cherry-picking, and I think it's irresponsible to dismiss an entire 24-hour network on the basis of 8 minutes of mostly out of context clips.
You're whipped.
I think he left the thread already because people "aggro'd" too much at the totally benign practice of taking a statement, twisting and adding to it at will, and then responding to the abhorrent freak of nature that resulted from those manipulations rather than the actual, original text.
Saturday Night Live has influenced elections since Gerald Ford was in office up to today. Should they be held to a higher standard during their skits, or just Weekend Update since it has a newsroom atmosphere? Maybe just a label 'Comedy Central is not a news network' should flash before each program.
Man, John Stewart destroying CNBC's credibility as a financial news and opinion source was glorious.
My girlfriend, who literally watches CNBC all day for her job, is really really pissed off about that segment.
Stewart took a lot of stuff completely out of context and cherry-picked the stupidest stuff from CNBC to generalize about the legitimacy of the entire network.
For example, the woman interviewing Thain in the snow—her supposedly brown-nosing quote was very probably skeptical. Stewart's guest claims CNBC doesn't differentiate between anchors and commentators, which apparently is not true at all. The Ponzi scheme interview was played over and over again on CNBC immediately after they realized it was a Ponzi scheme.
Even Jim Cramer—who on the network is acknowledged as a kind of crackpot—actually did warn about the looming financial crisis in his famous "YOU HAVE NO IDEA" meltdown. And CNBC has plenty of rational and skeptical anchors who rebut the bogus bullshit spewed by people like Santelli and Cramer.
Now, I do not watch CNBC. But Stewart was cherry-picking, and I think it's irresponsible to dismiss an entire 24-hour network on the basis of 8 minutes of mostly out of context clips.
CNBC is a fucking joke, and everyone in new york finance already knows this. Tell her to not waste her time.
Yeah, and I've been hearing growing rumors that Cramer himself has even been doing some dodgy shit for awhile now in the realm of market manipulation. I wonder what the odds are on some of the CNBC insiders being brought forward to face the music by the Obama administration Justice Department or regulatory agencies, or ratting out some of their buddies in exchange for immunity. Probably higher than would most people would be comfortable with.
With how rotten the financial sector has become, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if Obama's stimulus and mortgage plans were lower on the list for justifications for CNBC to wage war on him. I don't see a problem with Stewart calling bullshit on some of this stuff, even if it is cherry picking a bit to make for better satire.
My point here wasn't even to defend cable news. My point was simply that Stewart was being unfair, bordering on dishonest, and I don't think he deserves to be lionized for his CNBC segment.
CNBC really sucks, and they clearly had no idea what the fuck they were talking about, over and over again.
Care to dispute that?
I am disputing that you can make such an assessment based on 8 minutes of largely out-of-context clips on the Daily Show.
You've been using your girlfriend's opinion as fact throughout this thread without any independent research of your own.
No. I am using her as a knowledgeable source on CNBC since she actually watches it all day, and thus has a pretty good idea of whether or not Stewart's criticisms were fair. Do any of you watch CNBC all day?
You've been using your girlfriend's opinion as fact throughout this thread without any independent research of your own.
No. I am using her as a knowledgeable source on CNBC since she actually watches it all day, and thus has a pretty good idea of whether or not Stewart's criticisms were fair. Do any of you watch CNBC all day?
You've been using your girlfriend's opinion as fact throughout this thread without any independent research of your own.
No. I am using her as a knowledgeable source on CNBC since she actually watches it all day, and thus has a pretty good idea of whether or not Stewart's criticisms were fair. Do any of you watch CNBC all day?
You've been using your girlfriend's opinion as fact throughout this thread without any independent research of your own.
No. I am using her as a knowledgeable source on CNBC since she actually watches it all day, and thus has a pretty good idea of whether or not Stewart's criticisms were fair. Do any of you watch CNBC all day?
Do you?
I don't know your girlfriend she could be a compulsive liar for all I know.
Or a Republican.
And that's the point, you can believe her all you want but if you're gonna come here and try to make an argument with your only source being the chick that bangs you then don't be surprised when people question it's validity.
Since last night I've actually BEEN reading a bunch of articles about CNBC, so I can make my own opinion, not my SO's.
My point here wasn't even to defend cable news. My point was simply that Stewart was being unfair, bordering on dishonest, and I don't think he deserves to be lionized for his CNBC segment.
CNBC really sucks, and they clearly had no idea what the fuck they were talking about, over and over again.
Care to dispute that?
I am disputing that you can make such an assessment based on 8 minutes of largely out-of-context clips on the Daily Show.
But it's true. I know it is. Lots of people do.
And since TDS can't spend 3 hours fine combing CNBC's idiocy (there is a TON), they do the next best thing.
tell your girlfriend to go read the wsj and ft, and if she needs breaking news - bloomberg.
You've been using your girlfriend's opinion as fact throughout this thread without any independent research of your own.
No. I am using her as a knowledgeable source on CNBC since she actually watches it all day, and thus has a pretty good idea of whether or not Stewart's criticisms were fair. Do any of you watch CNBC all day?
I have. It made me lose money.(and brain cells) I stopped.
I don't know your girlfriend she could be a compulsive liar for all I know.
Or a Republican.
And that's the point, you can believe her all you want but if you're gonna come here and try to make an argument with your only source being the chick that bangs you then don't be surprised when people question it's validity.
Since last night I've actually BEEN reading a bunch of articles about CNBC, so I can make my own opinion, not my SO's.
Kagera, Kagera, Kagera. I thought we knew each other fairly well from other threads, but just in case, let me introduce myself. I'm Qingu. The only thing I hate more than Republicans is religion.
You're right of course, maybe my girlfriend is lying to me and is a secret conservative. Alternatively, maybe John Stewart is taking CNBC out of context in his criticism. Since I know someone whose job actually entails watching CNBC all day, I thought I would share her point of view.
It is rather interesting that this has elicited the sort of comments from you guys, though.
I don't know your girlfriend she could be a compulsive liar for all I know.
Or a Republican.
And that's the point, you can believe her all you want but if you're gonna come here and try to make an argument with your only source being the chick that bangs you then don't be surprised when people question it's validity.
Since last night I've actually BEEN reading a bunch of articles about CNBC, so I can make my own opinion, not my SO's.
Kagera, Kagera, Kagera. I thought we knew each other fairly well from other threads, but just in case, let me introduce myself. I'm Qingu. The only thing I hate more than Republicans is religion.
You're right of course, maybe my girlfriend is lying to me and is a secret conservative. Alternatively, maybe John Stewart is taking CNBC out of context in his criticism. Since I know someone whose job actually entails watching CNBC all day, I thought I would share her point of view.
It is rather interesting that this has elicited the sort of comments from you guys, though.
You are sharing her point of view as gospel Truth. That tends to rankle, regardless of the topic.
I don't know your girlfriend she could be a compulsive liar for all I know.
Or a Republican.
And that's the point, you can believe her all you want but if you're gonna come here and try to make an argument with your only source being the chick that bangs you then don't be surprised when people question it's validity.
Since last night I've actually BEEN reading a bunch of articles about CNBC, so I can make my own opinion, not my SO's.
Kagera, Kagera, Kagera. I thought we knew each other fairly well from other threads, but just in case, let me introduce myself. I'm Qingu. The only thing I hate more than Republicans is religion.
You're right of course, maybe my girlfriend is lying to me and is a secret conservative. Alternatively, maybe John Stewart is taking CNBC out of context in his criticism. Since I know someone whose job actually entails watching CNBC all day, I thought I would share her point of view.
It is rather interesting that this has elicited the sort of comments from you guys, though.
look dude, I've worked in finance. I used to work for JP.
You know what we would occasionally do when drinking after work? make fun of CNBC and the various retards on it. If you know anything substantial about finance, and you watch CNBC it makes you feel as stupid as . . . you watching fox news does.
It. Fucking. Sucks. At it's best it reflects mainstream group think (usually incorrect). Which is it's entire purpose, so I dont think that's necessarily an insult.
look dude, I've worked in finance. I used to work for JP.
You know what we would occasionally do when drinking after work? make fun of CNBC and the various retards on it. If you know anything substantial about finance, and you watch CNBC it makes you feel as stupid as . . . you watching fox news does.
It. Fucking. Sucks. At it's best it reflects mainstream group think (usually incorrect). Which is it's entire purpose, so I dont think that's necessarily an insult.
Are you under the impression that I am claiming, via my girlfriend, that CNBC on the whole gives good financial advice?
look dude, I've worked in finance. I used to work for JP.
You know what we would occasionally do when drinking after work? make fun of CNBC and the various retards on it. If you know anything substantial about finance, and you watch CNBC it makes you feel as stupid as . . . you watching fox news does.
It. Fucking. Sucks. At it's best it reflects mainstream group think (usually incorrect). Which is it's entire purpose, so I dont think that's necessarily an insult.
Are you under the impression that I am claiming, via my girlfriend, that CNBC on the whole gives good financial advice?
You are ripping on TDS for making the claim that it does not give good financial advice.
I dont know what the hell your position is. Unless its "TDS isnt acting like a proper journalistic source", at which point I'll point you to the fact that it is on comedy central.
look dude, I've worked in finance. I used to work for JP.
You know what we would occasionally do when drinking after work? make fun of CNBC and the various retards on it. If you know anything substantial about finance, and you watch CNBC it makes you feel as stupid as . . . you watching fox news does.
It. Fucking. Sucks. At it's best it reflects mainstream group think (usually incorrect). Which is it's entire purpose, so I dont think that's necessarily an insult.
Are you under the impression that I am claiming, via my girlfriend, that CNBC on the whole gives good financial advice?
What are you suggesting? Because so far it just seems like you consider TDS suggesting that CNBC gives horrible financial advice is unfair.
No one is denying he pick-and-chose clips that would put them in a bad light. That's what he does.
There's picking-and-choosing, and then there's cherry-picking. And then there's taking clips completely out of context, like the woman's interview with Thain.
It doesn't make him any less correct. And you've yet to do anything to show that it does.
I'm not denying that John Stewart is correct in his assessment of CNBC. I don't know; I don't watch it. I think the argument which he put forth on his show to this effect, however, was flawed, unfair, and somewhat dishonest.
We can segue here into whether or not Stewart, as a comedian, has a responsibility to put forth fair arguments for the rhetorical points he makes on his show, but that's a separate issue.
What are you suggesting? Because so far it just seems like you consider TDS suggesting that CNBC gives horrible financial advice is unfair.
I am suggesting that he cherry-picked the worst shows and characters on CNBC, and probably took one person in particular out of context, to put forth the argument that the entirety of CNBC is flawed and worthless. I do not think that is a good argument.
We can segue here into whether or not Stewart, as a comedian, has a responsibility to put forth fair arguments for the rhetorical points he makes on his show, but that's a separate issue.
No, he doesnt. He has about ten minutes to get the truth of the situation across, and be funny about it.
In fact, the only reason anyone ever thinks that he should have that responsibility is because the rest of televised news media is such utter shit that people actually get better information from TDS then from news channels.
No, he doesnt. He has about ten minutes to get the truth of the situation across, and be funny about it.
In fact, the only reason anyone ever thinks that he should have that responsibility is because the rest of televised news media is such utter shit that people actually get better information from TDS then from news channels.
Well, I honestly don't know what I think about the extent of John Stewart's responsibility as a news source (I'm conflicted). I basically agree with your assessment.
What I am disputing is that he did a good job of "getting the truth of the situation across" in the ten (or eight) minutes he had. The reason I am actually spending energy disputing this is because several people on here and on places like DKos have claimed this was an epic takedown or something.
What are you suggesting? Because so far it just seems like you consider TDS suggesting that CNBC gives horrible financial advice is unfair.
I am suggesting that he cherry-picked the worst shows and characters on CNBC, and probably took one person in particular out of context, to put forth the argument that the entirety of CNBC is flawed and worthless. I do not think that is a good argument.
So you're saying that he comedically failed to stand up to the rigorous standards of journalism whilst mocking CNBC over the course of 6 minutes?
No, he doesnt. He has about ten minutes to get the truth of the situation across, and be funny about it.
In fact, the only reason anyone ever thinks that he should have that responsibility is because the rest of televised news media is such utter shit that people actually get better information from TDS then from news channels.
Well, I honestly don't know what I think about the extent of John Stewart's responsibility as a news source (I'm conflicted). I basically agree with your assessment.
What I am disputing is that he did a good job of "getting the truth of the situation across" in the ten (or eight) minutes he had. The reason I am actually spending energy disputing this is because several people on here and on places like DKos have claimed this was an epic takedown or something.
I disagree. His parody montage of McCain's life story? That was epic. His exposure of Fox's bullshit "sexist" hypocrisy? That, too, was epic. His interview with Kristol was relatively epic as well, in my opinion.
I think this was just sloppy and overshot.
So you're saying that he comedically failed to stand up to the rigorous standards of journalism whilst mocking CNBC over the course of 6 minutes?
How...expected?
I'm judging him based on his own rigorous standards of epicness, thank you.
Quingu... what you are forgetting is what all the CNBC stuff is juxtaposed against. Namely, what's-his-face going off on Obama on the Wall Street floor, calling everyone who is now being burned and unable to afford their mortgages. All Jon did was show instances where, following CNBC's advice would put someone in EXACTLY this position.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
0
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
Everytime he come back I hope he asks if he can come back to work there.
Was he gone for a reason? I haven't seen him in a long time on the show.
He left like, three years ago to pursue an acting career, which has gone...terribly, as far as I can see. He starred in one or two Fox sitcoms that are no longer on the air, and he's had several minor-to-at-best second banana roles in movies. Ed Helms did the same thing, but the difference is that he got into The Office and became a pretty big hit.
EDIT: Stephen is my hero.
Omeks on
Online Info (Click Spoiler for More): |Xbox Live Tag: Omeks |PSN Tag:Omeks_R7 |Rock Band:Profile|DLC Collection
0
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
edited March 2009
The interview with the actor who played Dr. Manhattan is hilarious and seems like an awesome guy.
Even Jim Cramer—who on the network is acknowledged as a kind of crackpot—actually did warn about the looming financial crisis in his famous "YOU HAVE NO IDEA" meltdown. And CNBC has plenty of rational and skeptical anchors who rebut the bogus bullshit spewed by people like Santelli and Cramer.
No he didn't and if he did realize what was going on he was being criminally irresponsible by pushing the financial corporations that like 2 trading days after his show aired lost 90+% of its value.
However, over the past year or two (probably longer) they seem to be getting elevated amongst the general populace of something that's more than just comedy. At some point, whether or not the shows themselves choose to recognize such, there are questions of whether or not the shows have some responsibility to live up to their new categorizations in terms of accountability for their methods.
Bit late but there's an obvious point that hasn't been made yet. (EDIT: Or, of course, has been made and I just missed...)
When people start viewing TDS as their primary news source, that doesn't mean that TDS should start taking their show more seriously. It means the traditional primary news sources should take their shows more seriously. It's not a strength of one, it's a failing of the other.
I love the Daily Show, but I think fans of the show retreat behind the fact that it's "just a comedy show" far too often. It's disingenuous to say that since it's comedy it doesn't have to worry about misrepresenting the facts or such things. Obviously, the Daily Show is not journalism, but it's also not South Park or a comedy central sketch show. The Daily Show is political and journalistic satire, and through it Jon Stewart and the writers on the show actually really endeavor to voice their opinions. The explicit intent of the show is to express serious opinions on current events, even if it's all done facetiously. Really, I think the Daily Show is completely analogous to political radio talk shows and their like, and should be held to similar standards. The Daily Show does not have a duty to have any integrity like real journalism, but it doesn't mean that it shouldn't have any integrity.
This, of course, is all tangent to the CNBC discussion, honestly I've never watched it so I have no idea how sound the financial advice that it gives is.
As far as the CNBC takedown goes, it wasn't funny. They showed the clips of them making statements and then they cut to a black screen with the dates and times that the clips were shown to be untrue. It wasn't done in a funny way and it didn't make me laugh. The McCain life story and Fox sexism things that Qingu pointed out were done in a sarcastic and satirical manner.
It was poignant. But it wasn't funny.
Disclaimer: As everyone knows, humor is completely subjective and when I say "It wasn't funny", this statement only posits that the bit was not funny to me, as it is opinion.
Armored Gorilla on
"I'm a mad god. The Mad God, actually. It's a family title. Gets passed down from me to myself every few thousand years."
Posts
You're whipped.
Let me elaborate.
You've been using your girlfriend's opinion as fact throughout this thread without any independent research of your own.
I think he left the thread already because people "aggro'd" too much at the totally benign practice of taking a statement, twisting and adding to it at will, and then responding to the abhorrent freak of nature that resulted from those manipulations rather than the actual, original text.
God help us if satirical British shows get offered on basic cable...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzJmTCYmo9g
They show causal relation later in the paper.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Yeah, and I've been hearing growing rumors that Cramer himself has even been doing some dodgy shit for awhile now in the realm of market manipulation. I wonder what the odds are on some of the CNBC insiders being brought forward to face the music by the Obama administration Justice Department or regulatory agencies, or ratting out some of their buddies in exchange for immunity. Probably higher than would most people would be comfortable with.
With how rotten the financial sector has become, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if Obama's stimulus and mortgage plans were lower on the list for justifications for CNBC to wage war on him. I don't see a problem with Stewart calling bullshit on some of this stuff, even if it is cherry picking a bit to make for better satire.
Didn't you cry ad hominem earlier?
Argument from authority much?
People watch Pat Robertson all day.
Do you?
I don't know your girlfriend she could be a compulsive liar for all I know.
Or a Republican.
And that's the point, you can believe her all you want but if you're gonna come here and try to make an argument with your only source being the chick that bangs you then don't be surprised when people question it's validity.
Since last night I've actually BEEN reading a bunch of articles about CNBC, so I can make my own opinion, not my SO's.
But it's true. I know it is. Lots of people do.
And since TDS can't spend 3 hours fine combing CNBC's idiocy (there is a TON), they do the next best thing.
tell your girlfriend to go read the wsj and ft, and if she needs breaking news - bloomberg.
I have. It made me lose money.(and brain cells) I stopped.
You're right of course, maybe my girlfriend is lying to me and is a secret conservative. Alternatively, maybe John Stewart is taking CNBC out of context in his criticism. Since I know someone whose job actually entails watching CNBC all day, I thought I would share her point of view.
It is rather interesting that this has elicited the sort of comments from you guys, though.
You are sharing her point of view as gospel Truth. That tends to rankle, regardless of the topic.
look dude, I've worked in finance. I used to work for JP.
You know what we would occasionally do when drinking after work? make fun of CNBC and the various retards on it. If you know anything substantial about finance, and you watch CNBC it makes you feel as stupid as . . . you watching fox news does.
It. Fucking. Sucks. At it's best it reflects mainstream group think (usually incorrect). Which is it's entire purpose, so I dont think that's necessarily an insult.
No one is denying he pick-and-chose clips that would put them in a bad light. That's what he does.
It doesn't make him any less correct. And you've yet to do anything to show that it does.
You are ripping on TDS for making the claim that it does not give good financial advice.
I dont know what the hell your position is. Unless its "TDS isnt acting like a proper journalistic source", at which point I'll point you to the fact that it is on comedy central.
What are you suggesting? Because so far it just seems like you consider TDS suggesting that CNBC gives horrible financial advice is unfair.
I'm not denying that John Stewart is correct in his assessment of CNBC. I don't know; I don't watch it. I think the argument which he put forth on his show to this effect, however, was flawed, unfair, and somewhat dishonest.
We can segue here into whether or not Stewart, as a comedian, has a responsibility to put forth fair arguments for the rhetorical points he makes on his show, but that's a separate issue.
No, he doesnt. He has about ten minutes to get the truth of the situation across, and be funny about it.
In fact, the only reason anyone ever thinks that he should have that responsibility is because the rest of televised news media is such utter shit that people actually get better information from TDS then from news channels.
What I am disputing is that he did a good job of "getting the truth of the situation across" in the ten (or eight) minutes he had. The reason I am actually spending energy disputing this is because several people on here and on places like DKos have claimed this was an epic takedown or something.
So you're saying that he comedically failed to stand up to the rigorous standards of journalism whilst mocking CNBC over the course of 6 minutes?
How...expected?
It was an epic take down.
I think this was just sloppy and overshot.
I'm judging him based on his own rigorous standards of epicness, thank you.
Everytime he come back I hope he asks if he can come back to work there.
|Xbox Live Tag: Omeks
|PSN Tag: Omeks_R7
|Rock Band: Profile|DLC Collection
Was he gone for a reason? I haven't seen him in a long time on the show.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
He's doing other acting work.
He left like, three years ago to pursue an acting career, which has gone...terribly, as far as I can see. He starred in one or two Fox sitcoms that are no longer on the air, and he's had several minor-to-at-best second banana roles in movies. Ed Helms did the same thing, but the difference is that he got into The Office and became a pretty big hit.
EDIT: Stephen is my hero.
|Xbox Live Tag: Omeks
|PSN Tag: Omeks_R7
|Rock Band: Profile|DLC Collection
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
No he didn't and if he did realize what was going on he was being criminally irresponsible by pushing the financial corporations that like 2 trading days after his show aired lost 90+% of its value.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Bit late but there's an obvious point that hasn't been made yet. (EDIT: Or, of course, has been made and I just missed...)
When people start viewing TDS as their primary news source, that doesn't mean that TDS should start taking their show more seriously. It means the traditional primary news sources should take their shows more seriously. It's not a strength of one, it's a failing of the other.
This, of course, is all tangent to the CNBC discussion, honestly I've never watched it so I have no idea how sound the financial advice that it gives is.
It was poignant. But it wasn't funny.
Disclaimer: As everyone knows, humor is completely subjective and when I say "It wasn't funny", this statement only posits that the bit was not funny to me, as it is opinion.