Don't Blame Jim Cramer(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
Don't Blame Jim Cramer
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/16/AR2009031602319.html
29 comments
Sure, everybody says that want tough, serious, thoughtful journalism. But they vote with their eyeballs (and ad dollars) for the show with zany sound effects.
CNBC is itself a business, after all.
CNBC is itself a business, after all.
And that is part of the problem. This news agencies are owned by large corporations, whose motivation is profit and not the telling of news. The news media are no longer a strong force in helping to shape this country. It is not in their interest to ask the hard questions and do strong investigative reporting.
I was listening to an interesting pod cast on just this subject (http://www.dancarlin.com/disp.php/csarchive) if anyone is interested for a unique perspective on this.
*edit: grammar fixes
I was listening to an interesting pod cast on just this subject (http://www.dancarlin.com/disp.php/csarchive) if anyone is interested for a unique perspective on this.
*edit: grammar fixes
Well really, their motivation is profit and not not profiting.
If their viewers actually wanted thoughtful news, the agency that provided it would profit.
Since viewers want sound effects, action, drama, and easily digestible black-and-white polemic pieces, that is what the agencies provide, and they profit.
If their viewers actually wanted thoughtful news, the agency that provided it would profit.
Since viewers want sound effects, action, drama, and easily digestible black-and-white polemic pieces, that is what the agencies provide, and they profit.
But as they as say The people deserve the government they elect and in this case, the people deserve the entertainment they get.
CNBC knows that if they show just serious journalism, not a lot of people are going to see them, and at the end of the day, it's all a business !
CNBC knows that if they show just serious journalism, not a lot of people are going to see them, and at the end of the day, it's all a business !
So what's the answer? Propublica.org style journalism?
Who else would own them?
Themselves?
I am not sure what the ideal ownership is now. But CNBC is mostly owned by G.E. whose main interest in this property is making money. The desire to maximizing profits is in partial conflict with strong news reporting.
The burden does also reside on the consumers who demand more entertainment then real information.
I am not sure what the ideal ownership is now. But CNBC is mostly owned by G.E. whose main interest in this property is making money. The desire to maximizing profits is in partial conflict with strong news reporting.
The burden does also reside on the consumers who demand more entertainment then real information.
I really don't think it could have been prevented by good journalism. I see the government basically guaranteeing bank losses without adequate collateral. The government did not really know how the banks assets should be valued, but they were willing to accept the bank's word.
So basically the banks had a financial incentive to make extremely risky investments.
But still, Cramer and other journalists failed. By the time Cramer said that AIG was safe, I thought it should have been obvious that the banks had invested a lot of money in some extremely risky assets. In June that year Bear Stearns said it was spending over 3 billion to bail out one of its funds. So instead of Cramer deciding that he did not have enough enough information to evaluate AIG, and saying that, he basically decided that he had enough info to say that AIG was safe. That probably convinced a lot of people to keep their money in AIG stock.
So basically the banks had a financial incentive to make extremely risky investments.
But still, Cramer and other journalists failed. By the time Cramer said that AIG was safe, I thought it should have been obvious that the banks had invested a lot of money in some extremely risky assets. In June that year Bear Stearns said it was spending over 3 billion to bail out one of its funds. So instead of Cramer deciding that he did not have enough enough information to evaluate AIG, and saying that, he basically decided that he had enough info to say that AIG was safe. That probably convinced a lot of people to keep their money in AIG stock.
The web interview where Cramer admitted to manipulating stock values with his hedge fund seems pretty damning to me. It betrays a mindset focused on manipulation, rather than providing any kind of real economic value. While Cramer might be only one small cracked cog in the broken machine of banking, he had the opportunity to investigate and expose the inherent instability in the financial system but instead rode the wave like everyone else.
What happened to real journalism? With Uncle Rupert's claws sunk into the Wall Street Journal the future of quality investigative reporting seems dim.
What happened to real journalism? With Uncle Rupert's claws sunk into the Wall Street Journal the future of quality investigative reporting seems dim.
Is quality investigative reporting only the prerogative of the media establishment? I mean, is there something they have that the common person doesn't? I know it used to be an effective way of publicizing their ideas, but it looks like everyone has that now.
The Washington Post is right. We shouldn't blame Jim Cramer or other financial pundits (most people will try get away with whatever they can if they are allowed to). Instead we should blame the Washington Post itself and other news organizations for not publicizing how bad the corruption actually is in the financial sector. We (the people) are also to blame, but that's a whole different discussion.
The author is saying that no one at a high level knew the risks that were being taken off the books. Fair enough, that's something we need to fix. Apparently Sarbanes-Oxley didn't work.
But then the author tries to give Cramer a pass ("just an entertainer") by skipping Stewart's point: CNBC touts its talent as experts in financial news. Even the author goes back to calling Cramer a "financial journalist" a paragraph later. You don't get to quick-change between the suit of expertise and the fig-leaf of opinion.
If the CEO doesn't know when his own company is in trouble... that's news, right?
But then the author tries to give Cramer a pass ("just an entertainer") by skipping Stewart's point: CNBC touts its talent as experts in financial news. Even the author goes back to calling Cramer a "financial journalist" a paragraph later. You don't get to quick-change between the suit of expertise and the fig-leaf of opinion.
If the CEO doesn't know when his own company is in trouble... that's news, right?
Err, no, the author wasn't giving him a pass. He was saying just the opposite; that Cramer never should have copped to being an entertainer and that it was the result of a sort of "Stockholm Syndrome"
The logic here is nonsensical. "(a) Dick Fuld lost 9 figures on LEH. (b) If he knew about LEH's exposure to toxic MBS's, he would have avoided losing that money. (c) Therefore, he must not have known. (d) And if Dick Fuld didn't know, how could Jim Cramer?"
Not one of these points follows from any of the previous points.
Not one of these points follows from any of the previous points.
The funny thing is that Stewart never attacked Cramer. He attacked CNBC, and Cramer's clip was one of 8-10 that he played. Then the media cherry picked as usual, and it turned into the "battle of the titans"
Cramer is pretty much the face of CNBC. How many other anchors can you name?
Maria Bartiromo is the only other one I know. When Cramer was running a hedge fund he used to call in tips to her: http://www.deepcapture.com/jim-cramer-is-a-complicated-man/
yeah you are right...pretty much the only 2 other CNBC anchors people might name is Maria Baratararaamao(since she hosted one of the presidential debates) and Larry Kudlow
what? no, this is ridiculous.
did jim cramer or CNBC directly cause the financial meltdown? of course not. but that does not excuse bad/irresponsible behavior of the individual or lower levels.
edit #3: i'm having trouble getting my point across correctly, i feel, so i'm going to just leave it at what i've written.
did jim cramer or CNBC directly cause the financial meltdown? of course not. but that does not excuse bad/irresponsible behavior of the individual or lower levels.
edit #3: i'm having trouble getting my point across correctly, i feel, so i'm going to just leave it at what i've written.
[deleted](1)
call it terrorists, Enron or Jimmy Cramer, is US tradition to blame one person to the whole problem... and we are happy about it, oh now we know who is evil, lets blame him!
Your message is excessively specific. s/US/human/.
(Or were you going for the irony of demonstrating the fallacy you are highlighting by example, albeit on a slightly larger scale?)
(Or were you going for the irony of demonstrating the fallacy you are highlighting by example, albeit on a slightly larger scale?)
Yeah you're right, but not "human" its better if we call it "society" its not human nature to be like we are.
[deleted]
If someone gets their financial advice from a guy pretending to be crazy on TV, like some kind of used car salesman, they need to pull their heads out of their asses. Jim Cramer is entertainment, he's not going to make anybody rich. People who think he lost them money need to shut the fuck up.
[deleted](1)
The New York Times doesn't have subpoena power, but there are still a non-zero number of people in power who limit their shenanigans because they're terrified of ending up on the front page.
The government has a regulatory and investigative role, but it can't go out on a hunch or a rumor, a good journalist can (Which is not to say we need witch hunts).
One good journalistic organization can help keep a whole industry honest just by the threat of really investigating things that don't add up. WSJ is good at reporting, but I can't recall the last time they cracked a scandal in the financial world. Feel free to correct me.
Would a diligent, news-y CNBC have prevented the financial crisis? I doubt it. But perhaps they could've prevented or exposed some of the most ridiculous excess. It seems every person 'in the know' I've read has said that in hindsight they thought that Madoff was on the take, they just assumed he was an insider trader.
Would this stuff sell in comparison to Jim Cramer throwing pies? I don't know. But I have a hunch that a financial dateline style report exposing Madoff as a scam would've garnered a few viewers...