Cramer vs.Stewart vs.Cramer: TRUTHS EXPOSED IN AN UNLIKELY SOURCE

Jim Cramer appeared on Comedy Central's "The Daily Show" in a face-to-face discussion with host Jon Stewart that revealed more about the integrity and value of media commentary than the two men could have realized.

The pairing came about after Stewart engaged in a trashing of CNBC's financial reporting over the course of a few nights. It all began when CNBC reporter Rick Santelli self-righteously ranted on the air about the bailout of failed mortgage holders. When Santelli backed out of an appearance on "The Daily Show," Stewart's took the financial network to task over their inability to foretell the global market plunge. Somehow, Cramer ended up being the focal point of the discussions, exacerbated by a defense on "The Today Show." You are invited to watch the Stewart/Cramer bout here here, but I must warn you: It is unedited, and Stewart's language is often blistering.

The two started politely and contritely. Stewart acknowledged that Cramer was not the intended target of his harangue. Cramer defended people who faced mortgage foreclosures. "I've lived in my car," he admitted. "They're not losers, they're fighters.

Cramer continued his mea culpa by admitting that he missed signals of the economic implosion. But the sparring that ensued raises several questions about media coverage of the financial world (or anything else of importance, for that matter):

1. WHAT'S THE VALUE OF 24-HOUR NEWS IF THEY DON'T REVEAL ANYTHING OF VALUE? -- Stewart charged that CNBC presents itself as a font of economic knowledge Cramer as a particular Oracle. Why, then, did they fill their programming hours with mendacious CEOs who misrepresented the capitalization of their companies? Stewart said to Cramer that the two were both snake oil salesmen, but added, "Isn't it a problem selling snake oil as a vitamin tonic?...Isn't that the problem here? Which raises an equally pertinent point of view:


2. WHY AREN'T OTHER NEWS OUTLETS DOING THE TYPE OF RESEARCH THAT "THE DAILY SHOW" CONDUCTS REGULARLY? -- Stewart showed footage of Cramer talking "off-the-record" of his days as a hedge fund manager, clearly coming off as someone who manipulated the market and how easy it was to do so. "I want the Jim Cramer on TV to protect me from THAT Jim Cramer!," Stewart said. Cramer had no retort.
   But this was not unusual for Stewart and his staff. He historically exposes mendacious media types and public officials with their own words. But why don't we see that on "Meet the Press," or "Face the Nation?" Why does it seem that only "The Daily Show" has access to this data? It's not as though they have more time than other seemingly more legitimate news shows. "The Daily Show" broadcasts four nights a week, and the show tackles these issues within hours.


3. WHY ARE WE SO CONTENT TO HAVE OUR CELEBRATED MEDIA PUNDITS BEHAVE LIKE SUCH BUFFOONS? (AND YES, I'M LOOKING AT YOU, TOO, RUSH AND SHAWN!) -- Stewart called Cramer out for his clownish behavior, throwing toy bulls and bears around, ringing doorbells and honking horns. "I can't reconcile the brilliance and knoweldge that you have with the intricacies of the market with the craze B******T I see you do every night!" Cramer's responded (somewhat disingenuously, to my ear) that h was trying to attract a younger audience who really don't care about the P/E ratios, Tier One capitals, etc. Hey, Jim, how about educating them about these things? I think you sell young people short on that one.


4. IF JON STEWART CAN ACTUALLY PRESENT ANOTHER POINT OF VIEW (albeit in a debate), WHY CAN'T OTHER COMMENTATORS? (AND YES, I'M LOOKING AT YOU, TOO, RUSH AND SHAWN!) -- At least Cramer got the chance to present himself. What a difference from the Beck Blatherings and Limbaugh Cheese that passes for two-sided debate in other media (well, mostly radio, but you get my drift). When did hearing only one person for hours on end pass as "entertainment."

There has been a lot of coverage about this tete-a-tete between these two. But, as the law of unintended consequences sometimes allows, this incident has ended up revealing more about some things that are deeply lacking in our national conversations. We have so allowed ourselves to indulge our own prejudices that we have shut ourselves off from seemingly distasteful contrarian information that could actually nourish us. We end up drinking our own bath water, folks!Why did it take two funny men to give us a glimpse into that bitter truth?