Talk:Jon Stewart's 2009 criticism of CNBC/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Increasing scope of article

Man I'm tired—so I apologize in advance if this comes off as sounding brash.—I propose this article be broaded into one of a greater scope. In many instances, it would be similar to Stephen_Colbert_at_the_2006_White_House_Correspondents'_Association_Dinner. I'm talking about less of a 'Daily Show'-centric coverage of this media event. No section headers titled 'DATE segment', for instance. Instead it would also list other events related, like appearances on shows or dates of articles posted by Cramer.

Maybe an editor with more mojo/experience can outline how this would be accomplished? Rodomontade (talk) 07:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know there was a separate article on the Steve Colbert correspondents dinner. This Cramer-Colbert thing is bigger, so it weakens somewhat my "merge" argument in the deletion discussion. In fact, I am thinking of changing it to "keep" or perhaps to "merge to new article on criticism of CNBC."--JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh yeah, definitely. I think it was even a featured article? I don't know if you would say this was "more" notable, but it seems like a similar fiasco, though by no means identical. I agree with the user below that this article doesn't address Stewart's mocking of the media coverage. Though there was definitely a back and forth, I think 'Feud' may be too strong a word as Stewart repeatedly pointed towards the event being manufactured by news media. In that sense the real event is not the banter between Stewart and Cramer (who also was not flying off the handle), but the media coverage and the subsequent impact on journalism discourse. Rodomontade (talk) 17:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes I agree that what matters is not his appearing on the show but rather how it became a political and media issue. Though I voted "merge" in the deletion discussion, I am increasingly feeling that this subject needs to be fully discussed somewhere, either in an article on criticism of CNBC or in a stand alone article. Definitely not merged into James Cramer. Renaming this article was a very good idea. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Nice article on WSJ today that could be used to increase the scope of this article [1]. DP76764 (Talk) 15:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Mocking Media

Its interesting how in the last paragraph they mention quotes like how the Tribune says "Stewart Cleans Cramers Clock" and yet during most of the "exchange" Stewart mocked how the media was making such a big deal out of the whole affair, if some one knows where to get some transcripts, it seems like a good thing to reference in the article. (talk) 12:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Definitely correct. I know where you could find episodes of course... not really sure where you could find transcripts, though... Rodomontade (talk) 17:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggest Move

I'm watching this deletion discussion go on and I think people are correct: Only in rare instances should single episodes of a television show meet notability standards. However, that does mean I am for deletion. Rather this should be merged/moved into an article about the larger ramifications of the event (media coverage, discourse impact, commentary by others). I'm going to suggest a new title trying to follow the conventions of the Stephen_Colbert_at_the_2006_White_House_Correspondents'_Association_Dinner:

Jon Stewart's 2009 controversy with CNBC

Perhaps 'dispute' instead of 'controversy' would be more neutral phrasing? Just trying to keep it consistent with Wikipedia bio practices (usually in these instances there is an element in the table of contents called 'Controversies'). On the deletion page it has been suggested that this be made into an article called Criticism of CNBC. This is an interesting idea, but it seems such a broad topic maybe be unnecessary unless there is a volume of other similar criticisms that occurred very publicly. Rodomontade (talk) 17:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Support This is an excellent idea. With a good rename and some work bringing in the larger scope ramifications, this could be an excellent article. I would also lean away from 'criticism of cnbc', on the grounds you mentioned: there may not be enough separate criticisms of cnbc. DP76764 (Talk) 18:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the move was a good idea. Personally I feel that this article should be merged with a broader article on criticism of CNBC, but there seems to be a lot of sentiment for keeping it. JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I also agree. The title right now doesn't really make sense to me. He didn't "have" a controversy, a controversy developed after his segment aired. I'm also not really sure he had a dispute, more that some people disliked his criticism. Beach drifter (talk) 06:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure the current title is ideal - a 'controversy' usually requires there to be two groups who something is contested between, and that's not so much the case here. The vast majority of the comment on the subject has been supportive of Stewart - it's difficult to see what he did that can be called controversial. Having said that, I'm not sure what a better title would be, either. (Jon Stewart's 2009 criticism of CNBC?) Perhaps the original title was the best after all... Robofish (talk) 18:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I see what you mean Robofish. I'm responsible for the move/rename and I'm not sure it's an ideal title either. I felt the move needed to be timely in order to prevent the topic being buried due to narrow notability. I'd love to hear about alternate titles. Having said that, I don't think controversy is entirely inappropriate; a controversy is basically a disagreement or dispute, but especially one that is prolonged, heated, or highly publicized. Highly publicized at least seems to apply here. I agree that very few so far have announced their opposition to Stewart's position, but as to the question, 'Does anybody disagree?' I'm sure that some due. CNBC/Jim Cramer definitely carried on some activity that showed their disagreement. The article itself cites at least a third outside source, Rob Cohen of Washington Post, who disagreed with Stewart's position. My feeling (though this is purely crystal ball) is that as the dust settles we'll see more people voice varying degrees of disagreement with Stewart (which should rightly be included in the article). ☯ Rodomontade (talk) ☯ 20:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I would support that move. -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree, though as second choice to merge with Criticism of CNBC. Criticism has come from a number of other quarters. Just to name one off the top of my head, Barron's magazine has consistently criticized Cramer on the basis of his stock picking. Journalism reviews have also taken CNBC to task. (See articles linked here [2])JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • That's not what this article covers though. 'Criticism of CNBC' changes the content of the article, which is not what this move discussion calls for. -- Wikipedical (talk) 04:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I realize that, but I was thinking that perhaps there should be a broader article, with this article folded into that. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 13:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I moved the page based on the consensus in this discussion. -- Wikipedical (talk) 04:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


From an NPR article by David Folkenflik: "At times, Stewart crystallizes the frustration others have with the failings of the media with near-perfect pitch. It's one thing for media critics like me to pore through hundreds of articles to say the press didn't quite do its job as a watchdog of the nation's financial system. It's another for Stewart to cudgel a channel that has often championed the markets at a time when so many people have lost so much of their net value."[3] Rodomontade (talk) 17:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

"According to Comedy Central officials, its sites total unique visitors jumped by 27 percent during the week of March 2 vs. their 2009 average. Results were even better for, which saw its weekly unique user figure surge by 65 versus the rest of the year, and which similarly saw audience growth in the range of 64 percent versus its weekly average."[1] Rodomontade (talk) 17:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The Hill Reports CNBC lost viewers? [4]Rodomontade (talk) ☯ 02:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


"Jon Stewart’s evisceration of CNBC has become a boon to Comedy Central Digital, resulting in the highest traffic and video stream numbers this year for its collection of Web sites."[5] Daily Show clip that got it rolling.[6] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodomontade (talkcontribs) 18:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

"On one level, what Jon Stewart's assault on Jim Cramer demonstrated is that the desire for vengeance trumps any interest in a rational analysis of the stock market's prospects. Any discussion immediately becomes clouded by the rage we all feel toward Wall Street."[2] Rodomontade (talk) 17:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

"I am under the assumption--and maybe this is purely ridiculous--but I'm under the assumption that that we don't just take their word at face value, that you actually then go around and try to figure it out."[3] Rodomontade (talk) 17:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

"except on MSNBC where the hosts were strangely silent about this encounter. Were the MSNBC hosts under orders to keep silent about this since the parent NBC company didn't want to harm the credibility and ratings of a CNBC host? According to TVNewser, this was likely the case"[4] Rodomontade (talk) 17:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Stewart swipes at Cramer on Letterman.[5] Rodomontade (talk) 17:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's a good column by Marketwatch's media critic: He makes interesting points that I think should go somewhere in this article. JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Article by the Columbia Journalism Review entitled, 'The Daily Show Eviscerates Santelli and CNBC"[7] Rodomontade (talk) 23:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

"Stewart Hammers Cramer on The Daily Show"[8] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodomontade (talkcontribs) 03:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Stewart's criticism sparks discussion of problem with financial media? [9]Rodomontade (talk) ☯ 05:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Critical Sources

I just want to point out that so far a lot of the sources are gleaming response to Stewart's position. As I've researched articles the 'winner' or taking sides with his position have been easier to find, but certainly I recall seeing some negative responses; Stewart overreacted, Stewart was mean, unfair etc. I've added one such response by Richard Cohen in the Reactions section. Kudos to anyone who can find more. They're much needed to balance out the article. Rodomontade (talk) 16:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Image Use

Hey guys, so I'm a total image newb in terms of justifying fair use rational. I uploaded a couple images from The Daily Show. They may get removed? I'd appreciate anybody who's knowledgeable about image-use/policy looking into it. Rodomontade (talk) 19:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

  • I added fair use rationales. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! I should take a look at those to get a feel for it. Rodomontade (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Portrayal in Media

I added a section specifically to address the portrayal of events in the media, sometimes in conflict with what Stewart and Cramer themselves had to say about the exchange. Kudos to anyone who can find article titles from large news media outlets discussing this topic. I know I saw them a couple days ago but now I'm too tired to dig through Google News. Rodomontade (talk) 07:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


As opposed to his 1972 controversy with CNBC? Why do we need the 2009? Macarion (talk) 05:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Naming rules are at WP:NAME, which doesn't require the year to be specified unless it is necessary to avoid confusion with some other such event. I don't know for sure, but perhaps there have been past such controversies between Stewart and CNBC, or, perhaps a bit more likely, there is the possibility of other controversies in future years between the two parties.
Technically, as I read WP:NAME, the "2009" is not needed per se, but its inclusion does offer the reader the implication that the article is not about a very longstanding feud, but rather an event that is more localized in time. Therefore, I favor keeping the year in the title. --Art Smart Chart/Heart 06:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Yeah that's on me. I did wonder whether it was appropriate to have the year in there, but I thought it would narrow the event so that it didn't become a run-on article about any time that The Daily Show has ever criticized CNBC, sucking up clutter by reaching into the past and continuing into the future until its scope wasn't specific enough to be meaningful to those looking for information on this particular media event. Maybe that was a bad call? Cheers: Rodomontade (talk) 14:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  • No, I agree. I started this article with the intention of keeping a small focus on what happened last week. It is definitely a notable event (overwhelming 'keeps' in the deletionist AfD), and we'll see if Stewart/CNBC becomes more relevant later on in the year. Perhaps they'll cancel Cramer like CNN did with Crossfire? I prefer keeping the year in the title. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with having the year in the title, if this article is to remain and not be merged. Speaking of that, I think a merger discussion is warranted, assuming the article is not deleted as seems likely. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Since I'm kind of uninformed, maybe you could describe some of this to me: So what does a merger entail? How does an article such as this become 'merged'? Does it go under Cramer, Stewart, The Daily Show, CNBC or all of them? I appreciate any knowledge you can drop on me. Rodomontade (talk) 22:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
You're asking the wrong wikiholic. But I think you just start a discussion, which I will take the liberty of doing now, as it is evident that the AfD will result in a "keep." JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


Without prejudice to the ongoing AfD discussion, I think that it might be timely to discuss whether to merge this article or not. In my humble opinion, this does not deserve an article of its own. It may at some point, if Cramer is canned as a direct result of this Stewart business, but right now I don't see it. It is a close question, I admit.

My opinion is that it should be merged, but not into either Cramer's or Stewart's article for BLP and neutrality issues, as in "undue weight." My view is that it should be merged into either CNBC or an article that has not yet been created, Criticism of CNBC. Thusforth, my vote is Merge. Comments?--JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It certainly can't go into Cramer or Stewart, and frankly it's rather large to fit in TDS. Criticism of CNBC would be good, though I personally favour keeping this for a month or two and seeing how we feel about it then. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  • The current AfD will show what the consensus on the article is. The nominator of the AfD wanted to merge the page, and so far the consensus is overwhelmingly against that. Let's not "vote" here on the talk page while this discussion is already going on in a broader forum. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think merge would be the right move for this article, as it already contains much information related to the instance that would be lost, on top of the fact that it continues to develop. The notability of this article isn't that it got caught in the media echo-chamber. Rather, it's about a line of discourse in the media that has developed regarding the role of business journalism, CNBC and business moralism. It's worth nothing that at this point the head of NBC actually responded to these concerns. ☯ Rodomontade (talk) ☯ 19:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

a merger wouldn't result in lost information - it'd still be available to those using the History feature. if you want to call it a loss all the same then see WP:LOSS. also, that the head of NBC commented on it doesn't mean much - if his kid made a website and he commented on that that doesn't mean his kid's website deserves an article and neither does it mean that here Misterdiscreet (talk) 20:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Wow, how did I miss this? I would generally support a merge or delete on general principles, but this is a very well written article and I don't see how it can be accomplished practically without losing / degrading encyclopedic content - there's not really an appropriate article to merge it into. It would be undue weight in the Daily Show or Jon Stewart's page. And it is not really relevant enough for the article on Mad Money. If we had a season / episode guide for the Daily Show it would fit there.Wikidemon (talk) 17:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Hmm... that's a thought. Course the Daily Show isn't like a once weekly—more like four times a week, practically a nightly.. Sheer volume would make that episode guide ridiculously long... ☯ Rodomontade (talk) ☯ 17:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
It would be undue weight in the Daily Show or Jon Stewart's page. Yes. That's why you trim it down to one to two sentences. or maybe create a new article - List of notable Daily Show moments and add a one to two paragraph discussion of this there Misterdiscreet (talk) 00:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  • This page was featured as a DKY on the main page yesterday. There were mass amounts of "keep" votes in the AfD. And if I do say so myself, the article is very well written and sourced considering it was started only one week ago. I don't think we should be looking to reduce or trim this article, we should be looking to improve it and make it a GA or FA. Talking about merging this page right now is really just unproductive, as our focus should be on improving the article that meets notability and content standards. I really don't see why merging this page would be beneficial to Wikipedia at this point. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Calling a Wikignome: Sources

We need somebody knowledgeable about source markup to go through and add titles, access dates, etc. I barely understand this process... Cheers! ☯ Rodomontade (talk) ☯ 21:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I can do that later today. Tom 17:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Just done most of them - there are a few more flying around but right now it's bed time. DJR (T) 01:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Did Santelli's rant start this whole bruhaha?

Is there a citation for this besides the huffington post or blogs? TIA Tom 16:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

  • I believe there were multiple mentions of this being the source directly on the Daily Show. Plus, during the Cramer interview, Stewart expressly mentions that his show was commenting mostly on the network and Santelli, IIRC. But that would be a primary source, no? DP76764 (Talk) 17:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Though I'm not particularly familiar with the source, Broadcasting and Cable [10] seemed to do some early reporting on how it was in response to Santelli? ☯ Rodomontade (talk) ☯ 19:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I've undone the edits that removed reference to Rick Santelli. We have various sources about Santelli's outburst itself, as well as at least one USA Today article about how it started with Santelli and then Cramer ended up in the middle of it. Though I'm not sure about the appropriateness of this forum, it may be evenhanded to point out that Santelli is not criticized by Stewart for being against the bailouts, as Cramer calls him 'ideologically consistent', but rather against Wallstreet populism in general? ☯ Rodomontade (talk) ☯ 19:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a source to support it (in fact, this is original research), but it seems to me that Santelli must have started it one way or the other - either Stewart et all responding to his cancellation or they responded to his rant. Since they claim it wasn't the former, I would guess the latter. My reason for believing the latter to be the case is because Stewart explicitly used Santelli's clip to get his broad attack against CNBC rolling, basically using Santelli's rant and the claim of "losers" as a counterweight to the question of whether CNBC is a reliable source to defining loser. Ok, that's a poorly worded point, but the method of showing CNBC making bad call after bad call, his implication that one would lose money if they listened to CNBC solely, and the kickoff of Santelli's rant all imply that Stewart was saying "How can you call 'us' losers because if we had used you as our guide to financial greatness, we'd be in financial ruin." So yes, Santelli's rant is almost certainly the starting point. A less difficult and OR way to put it might be "in response to a rant made by...", but I'm not positive if that'll work. --Forgottenlord (talk) 23:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Jeff Zucker thoughts

It seems that NBC Universal Chief Executive Jeff Zucker is lashing out at Stewart today as seen here. Sarujo (talk) 03:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

There was also a rebuttle by Viacom's chief, though it was far less focused on this particular incident than Zucker's statement. --Forgottenlord (talk) 23:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

See Also Links

I don't know what would also be helpful in the See Also area. I added a couple, but I don't know much about this. We're not supposed to put links in this section that appear in the article, correct? Some useful links here seem like they would add a lot of information and utility to the article. ☯ Rodomontade (talk) ☯ 21:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Lenny Dykstra story

Recently, (last week, I believe - I do not have the exact episode number at this time), the Daily Show featured a story about the rise-and-fall of Lenny Dykstra (former Mets player who became a "financial guru", wherein John Stewart claimed the story (with it's focus on a player from the 1986 Mets - the year he moved to New York, the financial crisis which he claimed is "consuming us all") encapsulated his entire life, or something similar. Anyway, the end of the story had clips of Cramer last year endorsing/promoting Dykstra. I think this merits inclusion (I can dig up the exact details, if anyone would like them) as it is a continuation of the "Jim Cramer has no idea what he's talking about" message. This does not require a massive section, obviously, but does anyone believe this is chronologically "outside" of the criticism in question? NeutronTaste (talk) 03:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Title change?

Shouldn't the title of this article be "The Daily Show's 2009 criticism of CNBC", or something thereabouts? It wasn't Stewart (or at least, not just Stewart) who wrote the bits, it was the Daily Show writing staff... — Hunter Kahn 21:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, he was the one who articulated it, and it was portrayed on cnbc as Stewart. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

More on Santelli

It's odd if you watch The Daily Show tape from March 4th ( Stuart moves from Santelli to Cramer to Stanford.

Santelli's point (much like Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, and other Tea Party heroes) is that the FED caused the problems which led to the 2008 collapse by printing and spending money it doesn't have. Bailouts similarly come from the FED and amount to nothing more than printing and spending more money it doesn't have. Since bailouts are more of what caused the problem, they will worsen the problem in the long term. Hence, the criticism.

In Santelli's rant he likens those who made bad investments in their homes to failing banks and companies, while claiming that we shouldn't bail out any of them. The idea is that the government should not be engaged in any such activity. The reference to "losers" seems tied to those who make poor investments, and the idea that most normal people should not have to pay to help everyone and anyone who makes a poor investment.

This view that has nothing directly to do with Jim Cramer's picks, and is firmly against allowing practices like the Stanford ponzi scheme. So tieing Santelli to such people is nothing more than a smear campaign against Santelli by Stewart, who may or may not be aware of the economic theory - Austrian economics - which actually underlies the original Tea Party claims. To lump Santelli, Cramer, and Stanford together is at least wildly misinformed and at worst devious and well orchestrated propaganda.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

And this pertains to this article how? What exactly are you proposing changing or adding? Any additions of 'critical thinking' like this need to be well sourced. DP76764 (Talk) 17:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)