The Cramer vs. Stewart Thing...

It is all about the disclaimers and trustworthiness of those who are in authority which now is very disruptive and no one is catching something important in this brou-ha-ha. Not wanting to add to the din of the story or echo of the simple idea of it all, the deeper story was backburnered until something important needed to be said. 

There is a much bigger newsworthy story to this.  If you are interested.

First, background:
Last week Jon Stewart of the fake (but perhaps more relevant) news/comedy show took on Jim Cramer, entertaining man of his own financial show, Mad Money, for errant ways of investment leadership authority and everyone weighed in.  The NYTimes wrote about it, as did WaPo.

I've watched the full interview (via HuffPo is one way to access it) and my take was larger than the winner/loser, black/white of it.  In a longer view is Glenn Greenwald's opinion where he links the mainstream media with failing to cover things, as they did with W. Bush.  The hand-wringing and attempt to put it in perspective is agonizing at the moment, as is the effort to get the economic situation under control.

But Here's the Deal:
Not only is "battle of the talking heads" an example of the public anger of our current economic times, but it is also a cry of indictment of the current way that fake news can get to the crux of the story or validate truth and truthiness as opposed to the mainstream real news media presenting it, tied to they are with corporate ownership and sponsorship.  The news itself is something to be entertained by (and Cramer is the Lord of making boring financial information manically entertaining). This story was just one way the angst was channelled. Anger expressed. Exasperation released. We all feel better now, the way we get our news with _____vs ______.  Even if _____vs_____ is on the same side.  The last time we had a battle it was at the polls, wasn't it? Last November? Remember, we are a war society primed for anything when it is in battle form, especially when we can take it in framed as good vs evil.

After studying, since September, the media and the financial crisis story, it is amazing, isn't it, that the mainstream media just didn't dig into the economics of the disaster-in-the-making and from December until now, the cry has been why.  Who can we trust? Certainly, now, not the head of A.I.G. (Burson-Marsteller,  pr firm for AIG, you have your work cut out for you on this one with public relations. Perhaps you should encourage the changing of the name, for a new sort of branding, like you did for your client, Blackwater, who now has the new name Xe).  AIG = GAG.  Who are the bad guys? Now the story overflows into Obama as the seguey:  Can he be the good guy to solve the problem caused by the bad guys?

There are good people doing good things in the financial business -- I know, lemme tell you -- and the mud is slung on all, including the innocent. Wall Street will never be the same. The news of this was out there, going clear back to the leaders in the Clinton administration, but you had to dig for it and laws and regulation always follow technological innovations (think quants).  This sort of news was not legitimate news, it was outside the sphere of acceptable controversy.  Plus, it was complicated and hard to understand. Like global warming and climate change has been for years. We are primed for the light stuff.  Missing white girls, tots or teens. Celebrity scuttlebut. Or the simple framing of this/that.

But Here's My Real Point You Won't Find Elsewhere:
The night that the Cramer vs. Stewart interview occurred I happened to have watched Cramer's show and was totally surprised by a totally new thing: a disclaimer scrolled at the end of his show, like the way that drugs are now marketed to the older cable news audiences or in magazines. It is becoming, really, a responsibility joke, this disclaimer bit (my husband I now go off on riffs when we hear them, voicing our own creative dire warnings, like it might cause your nose to fall off, or your toes to become hammered). Now even the tv shows are getting disclaimers? 

We're sort of in a disclaimer world now.  Consumer beware.  There are titans of distrust.  Take it at your own risk. No one is responsible for anything.  Our world is too complicated. Who can control it, manage it, lead it, understand it? Believe it/take it/do it/eat it/buy it/vote for it/ at your own peril. 

(note: this blog is not an authority nor does it profess to be, on any topic whatsoever.  Reading this blog may cause you to think.  Or not. The stupid name has nothing to do with the content. Or maybe it does. Motherhood and Applepie. Does it exist anymore? And so it goes...)

Comments

[Lauri]

Your disclaimer made me laugh. Thanks as always, for an interesting post!

[tut-tut]

Oh oh. The sky fell and no one noticed until, well . . .

[Janet]

Caveat emptor indeed. This was very intriguing. I do love Jon Stewart - I KNOW I get more information from him than anywhere else.

[Kay Dennison]

How sad that it's come to disclaimers. I was taught as a child to question. (Got me in a lot of trouble with the nuns!)
I don't need a discaimer to remind me to do so but I really loved yours!

[naomi dagen bloom]

And the NY Times has a Public Editor, an illusion of truthiness?

When I look at what that particular newspaper has become (and "the good old days" had many problems), the loss of newspapers and those trained in journalism begins to seem less of a loss. No, depending on political blogs is not my idea of getting news.

We need a shift to a different form. What is it? Oh, I'd hoped you had the answer.