Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Iraq War Defender Becomes Jim Cramer Defender

By

Richard Cohen begins a remarkable column today with this paragraph:

What Jon Stewart needs is Jon Stewart. He could use a droll comedian to temper his ferocity and correct him when he’s wrong, as he was about the financial media, particularly CNBC and its excitable analyst Jim Cramer. They didn’t cover up the story of financial shenanigans. They didn’t even know it existed.

In other words, our press is no longer accountable for ferreting out the truth. It’s unfair to expect more than conventional wisdom. He goes on to argue that “no one could have known” about Lehman Brothers because its former chairman lost money on Lehman Brothers.

“No one could have known” is a defense we’ve heard from Richard Cohen before. During the Iraq War, he was a liberal hawk.

As long as we continue to accept such low standards, our country will suffer self-inflicted problems that “no one could have known” about.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. Journalism, it is not. More apologetics from a member of the comfortably connected punditocracy. Sometimes I think what we need is a revolution to shake these people up.  

  2. Stewart was essentially criticizing the network for simply taking the word of execs and CEOs and assuming it was true. At least from my watching, I don’t think he’s ever said that CNBC was trying to say they knew about all the shenanigans that went on.  

    • I think Stewart did want to make the point that CNBC and Cramer simply took the word of the financial CEOs at face value.

      <

      p>But more important was the fact that Cramer (as illustrated in the amateur video) and the rest KNOW there is funky stuff going on and they don’t talk about it. They have an opportunity to shine a whole lot of light on how things “really” work, beyond what the average schmo knows. Things that have a significant impact on markets and share values.

      <

      p>For some odd reason, they leave this stuff in the dark, as if it is too much “inside baseball” that isn’t “entertaining” enough. Despite the fact that they put themselves out as a “resource” for helping that average schmo understand how things work and gain and indirectly gain a financial advantage from that new knowledge.

      <

      p>Did CNBCs folks say they knew about the shenanigans going on? No. That’s the problem. They “should’ve” talked about the shenanigans they “knew” were going on and then dug to uncover more, connecting the dots to potential catastrophe.  

  3. Bush said we didn’t torture, so it wasn’t happening.

    <

    p>Pelosi said that impeachment was off the table, so there was no point in discussing its merits.

    <

    p>Saddam was getting uranium from Niger, the British government allegedly told them so.

    <

    p>You don’t have to answer a Congressional subpoena when your name is Karl. Don’t ask why not.

    <

    p>etc., etc.

    <

    p>It’s not the media’s fault, nobody in power told them…

    <

    p>And of course they can’t ask tough questions, or they’ll lose access to what those in power want us to hear.

    <

    p>You know all this. I just needed a rant.

Archives