Jon Stewart vs. Harsh Reality

Stewart seized upon this mercilessly, accusing the entire network of complicity with Wall Street criminals raiding our long-term investments, and suggesting that finacial journalists at large failed to protect the public from our current dire straits. To Jim Cramer, the gauntlet was thrown down, and he responded in kind. The Cramer/Stewart feud culminated in an appearance by Cramer on The Daily Show, in which Stewart eviscerated him, showing old clips of Cramer encouraging duplicity from financial professionals. 

I'm not defending Cramer. As Stewart himself stated repeatedly, this problem is not about Cramer nor is it his fault (which is not to say he is completely innocent). The problem I have is with Jon Stewart and his populist posing. If you've seen the extended Cramer interview, you may know what I'm talking about. Stewart continually attacks a contrite Cramer throughout the interview, and when he's finally submitted him and has Cramer apologizing and saying what is essentially "I'm sorry, I fucked up, tell me what you want me to say and do and I'll do it," Stewart changes focus and admits this is not Cramer's fault entirely.  He criticized the journalistic integrity of CNBC for taking the word of CEOs at face value. His whole point is that CNBC and financial journalism should not necessarily be a regulatory agency, but should be held essentially to the same standards as one, protecting the interests of the investor over all else.

While that would be wonderful, it was interesting to watch Cramer bite his tongue at these naive assertions. He was there to apologize and show contrition, so he certainly could not say "What about maintaining a dialogue with these CEOs? If we were there to police them, just how frank do you think they would be with us?" In any case, it was a typical position for Stewart to take, curiously landing somewhere between hypocrisy and oversimplification. If you take his position one step further, what about the credulity of CNBC viewers? 

These are hard times for everyone (except mega-crooks, of course), and in hard times a healthy dose of skepticism is good to have. Every single person in America who is of age to start investing has seen a bubble burst, and knows on some level that you can't make money (legally) without a real product. Stewart began his crusade by framing this topic with the words of Rick Santelli, suggesting that CNBC is out of touch and I, Jon Stewart, am on your side and totally pissed at these ivory tower dickheads. It's their fault for not warning you adequately. Well, Stewart has a point. But what about your responsibility, Jon? What about your analysis of the situation? Is it really the job of a man throwing plastic cows and playing sound effects to make sure you're well-informed? For that matter, is it anyone's responsibility but your own? 

My point is simple: Jon Stewart is a wonderful actor and a hilarious comedian. He is not the arbiter of financial responsibility. He has a point about the responsibility of the financial press at large dropping the ball, but if we listen to his rant and continually pass the buck-- to white-collar crooks, to lazy journalists, to blind regulators, or to innefficacious leaders-- we absolve ourselves of any blame or responsibility, and doom ourselves to repeat the cycle. The grand irony in this is that Santelli has been right all along: people losing their homes are losers. It doesn't mean they're bad people, it only means they failed to care for their investments properly, possibly because they listened to the wrong people. What Stewart is suggesting is that it's not their fault, and someone else should be vigilant, skeptical, and responsible for them, and while that makes for an influential argument on a fake news show, it'll get you only one place here in reality: in an apartment a few miles away from your former house, foaming at the mouth, pointing fingers, and wishing a TV comedian called the shots.