I should have checked the reader blogs before posting, because quite a few people had a similar take to mine.
I can't help but think this was a really important TV moment, like when Walter Cronkite offered his opinion that the Vietnam War was lost.

It was marvelous watching that last night. CNN keeps playing it. hahaahhaha

Oh I love your line:

Listen to Fox, and it's people who don't listen to Fox.

Really fine.

Cramer's pathetic defense last night was that his stock-market advice (which millions followed) was merely "entertainment."

That was only part of his defense. The other part was that he was deluded by liars. That's when Jon hit him with the evidence of his very words, explaining how HE practiced illegal delusions himself.

When he again tried to pretend to be a naif, Jon reminded him that the job of a news organization was not to parrot what they are told, but to actually check stuff out.

Don't apologize for doing another blog on this subject; this was important, and the more attention it gets, the better.

I hope Cramer has plenty of stocks to tide him over. I'll bet he won't have a job much longer. He will be the sacrificial mad dog (rather than lamb) for CNBC -- as though that is all that's wrong with them.

Yes, the poster need not apologize. The more the merrier.

If CNBC takes out Cramer, then they need to replace him with someone who meets the expectations set out by Jon but held by all of us, that the press check out the facts before they let statements on the air. If they fail to do this, then it is the MSM that is complicit, although not already knowing that demands giving them a huge benefit of the doubt.

I wish he had given John McCain the business. That guy got away with more BS than anyone I've ever seen, and Jon gave him very light interviews as well.

No one ever called him out on Palin, who is/was obviously oblivious to the world and its machinations. When he would answer that he was proud of her, he should have been laughed at and then held to the wall.

Considering McCain's age, his choice of Palin was particularly reckless, and NOT ONE person really made him answer for that, although David Letterman came the closest.

John McCain is looking more and more feeble, I've noticed. If he is not around at the end of Obama's first term it will give us all a little more to think about -- and what is appalling is how close they actually came with the popular vote. The media gave this duo a complete pass on the horror that a McCain/Palin administration would have represented.

And Chip Reed yesterday talked about "Democrats raising their ugly heads," and all he gets is laughs!

Considering McCain's age, his choice of Palin was particularly reckless, and NOT ONE person really made him answer for that, although David Letterman came the closest.

Actually, the MSM did a decent job roasting the Palin pick - especially the op-eds.

Please hold back the adoration. Jon Stewart doesn't have libel concerns. He can schtick everything off on comedy if he has to. So he's a little freer to say things than the MSM, which does have at least a stated position of objectivity.

He doesn't have to worry about credibility, because he does a fake news show. That's what he calls it -- a fake news show. He's not concerned with fact, just making people laugh. He's got "correspondents" with green screens making stuff up. It's funny, but it's not facts.

He sucker punched Cramer. Maybe Cramer had it coming -- he does disagree with Obama (which apparently is becoming a cardinal sin around here), after all -- but he didn't agree to this interview expecting to be seriously interviewed and lambasted. He didn't expect to be called to task for the economic crisis. You know why? Because it's a fake news show.

Likewise, Jon doesn't do this to everyone. He picks and chooses his targets. We just happen to like it because he did it to someone the collective 'we' here at TPM don't like at the moment. Had he done it to Seibulus, or, heck, Josh Marshall, we wouldn't think it funny; we'd think it irresponsible.

We don't expect The Daily Show to give us NEWS (And God help those who are proud to say they do) because it doesn't feel any responsibility to inform, just entertain. It doesn't feel the need to be objective, just funny.

Last night, while everything he said may have been true, Jon Stewart was a bully, a nightclub comic picking on the fat woman in the front row. Jon knows there's laughs in blasting someone fo the economic mess we're in. Jim Cramer was just the easiest target around.

Well put, Sam. I would also say that both Cramer and Stewart are too focused on entertainment to be informative (though Stewart is more honest about his intentions in that respect), and those who take seriously ANYTHING they see on the Daily Show or Mad Money, including "serious" debates between Stewart and Cramer, are kidding themselves.

So, to summarize, your problem is that Jon Stewart...

- told the truth about Cramer and the institutions he flacks for.
- used video of Cramer to support his statements.
- caught Cramer lying in virtually every statement he made on air.

I don't care what your leaning is, if an interviewer tells the truth and documents his sources, there is no logical basis to bitch about it. Stewart used video of his guest to eviscerate said guest. That's Tim Russert, not Bill O'Reilly. The difference should be clear.

Your examples of Sebelius or JMM for other Stewart targets are phony. Neither of them has pulled the BS Cramer has, and therefore there is no basis for such an approach to them.

Also, the interview wasn't *politically* partisan. Cramer has intentionally given shoddy financial advice for YEARS under the network-validated guise of "financial expertise". That's garbage, regardless of who you support politically.

You conveniently ignore the context for Stewart's interview. This has been brewing for a while, and Cramer had to know he was in for a rough ride if he ever went on. Cramer could've skipped the show, but he didn't - to his credit.

Saying that Cramer was sucker-punched is a bunch of spinmeister crap that would make Ari Fleischer proud. I challenge you to find one thing Stewart said that was not factually accurate. In lieu of that, try getting mad at the "serious" news programs for letting a "fake news anchor" show them up.

I've been scoping out the reaction today, and commenters across the political spectrum scored it a Stewart knockout; some thought the fight should have been stopped as a TKO in the second round.
The one defense the right-wingers seem to be rallying to is one that MSA3 touches on above: that Stewart didn't take on Cramer until Cramer (who says he's a Democrat) started criticizing Barack Obama. So Stewart's a hypocrite and part of some liberal PC conspiracy.
They conveniently ignore that political preferences never even surfaced on last night's show.
TIME magazine's TV critic seems to have a rather clear-eyed view of what last night's smackdown was really about -- and why it was important:
http://tunedin.blogs.time.com/2009/03/13/stewartcramer-whos-this-song-about/

Why doesn't Stewart have people on his show that were really responsible for the credit crisis?

Instead he has on an entertainer/reporter/commentator. Nothing that Cramer said on his TV show caused the mess we're in right now.

And for Stewart to insinuate that CNBC should have had a bigger role in preventing this is just bogus.

If Stewart was really sincere about getting to the bottom of this, he'd spend more time lynching the people that really had a hand in the cookie jar. Cramer isn't one of them

OK - well CNBC didn't just parrot what GE told them to say. They have always had hosts and guests that always showed both sides of the story. They have bulls and they have bears on their show. They have most of the major CEOs across all industries and they usually ask them the right questions. Maybe their not as tactless as Stewart, but their show isn't on Comedy Central and they're not supposed to be as satirical as Stewart.

I don't like Cramer but he's just one person. And I think he does dig in. And for Stewart to somehow assign blame to CNBC for not stopping the credit crisis is just not sincere. He's upset at Cramer because CNBC could have stopped it if they were just harder on their guests. That's baloney.

I loved the segment, but...

How are the MSM thieves?

Is CNBC the MSM? What is it's role? And what is Jim Cramer's function? I don't watch his show, but seems to me he's just a clown doling out shoddy investment advice with a huge grain of salt. Most everyone in that business got it wrong and they're deep in the crapper too.

Finally, what was that video that Stewart kept referring to?

Armchair:
Watch that videotape again.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13846_3-10196471-62.html
It's clear to me what it shows: Cramer talking candidly -- and not for TV broadcast -- about his own actions as a hedge-fund manager.
He talked, among other things, of manipulating the price of RIM or Apple shares by spreading false rumors.
So Cramer himself is, putting the best face on it, a RETIRED thief. But if you know the game is fixed (because you yourself have experience fixing it) and you still try to lure the gullible into playing, aren't you part of a conspiracy to defraud?
Stewart pointedly referred to actions that were unethical "if not criminal."
CNBC didn't just "get lied to" by CEOs. They were and are in on the game. Not just a sin of omission, but commission.
I think Cramer was such a meek lamb at the slaughterhouse because he knew that tape would be shown, and he didn't want to call attention to his arguably criminal admissions on it.
Now, CNBC is not the entire MSM; just one small part. But let me call your attention to a point Josh made yesterday: CNBC does not report to NBC News, so it isn't bound by that division's journalistic "standards."
NBC structured it that way. Why?
And if they aren't feeling guilty, why the coverup? Why order MSNBC to pretend Cramer-Stewart never happened?
CNBC is just one of the rocks on the MSM beach. Maybe we should look under a few more of them.