by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright March 18, 2009
All Rights Reserved.

             Comedy Central comedian John Stewart touched a raw nerve at NBC for his March 12 smack-down with CNBC’s host of “Mad Money” Jim Cramer.  Stewart blasted Cramer for CNBC complicity during the latest Wall Street meltdown, calling Cramer essentially a shill to the financial community.  Cramer offered little defense of Stewarts’ main criticism that CNBC acts as cheerleaders for its corporate sponsors.  Cramer’s wild bravado was transformed into passive apologist on Stewart’s “The Daily Show,” offering little defense of himself or the network he represents.  “Everybody wants to find a scapegoat.  That’s human nature,” said NBC Universal CEO Jeff Zucker, speaking at a media industry conference, dismissing Stewarts’ critique as unfounded hyperbole. Reacting to Stewart’s stinging critique, Zucker tried to rehabilitate his network’s tainted credibility.

            Nothing hurts credibility more of a business news network than associating  “journalism” with undue influence from corporate sponsors.  Crossing the line between journalism and corporate sponsorship invites the kind of skepticism that turns off viewers.  During the latest market downturn, over $13 trillion in household wealth was vaporized, leaving ordinary investors skeptical of the advice received on allegedly respected business programs.  Zucker felt obligated to respond because Stewart’s show opened up a can of worms about the relationship between journalism, entertainment and corporate sponsorship.  Stewart called Cramer out on statements about how, as a fund manager, he manipulated the media and affected share prices.  Stewart wanted Cramer to confess to allowing corporate sponsors to determine overly zealous news coverage reported on CNBC.

            Zucker’s overreaction stems from the very real possibility that frustrated viewers could connect the dots and see CNBC in bed with icorporate sponsors.  Revelations about how, during the Bush years, the vice president’s office impacted the pre- and ongoing Iraq war coverage.  Formerly respected New York Times journalist Judith Miller was criticized for allowing former Vice President Dick Cheney’s office to supply the intelligence about Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction, especially his nuclear and biological weapons’ programs.  Years of front-page stories on the New York Times boosted the credibility of Saddam’s arsenal of WMD.  When U.S. forces after the invasion found no illicit weapons, legitimate questions were raised by the role of journalists in interpreting the factual accuracy of  news stories.  Miller’s incestuous access to Cheney’s office inadvertently promoted the war.

            Attacking Stewart accomplishes two things:  It (a) discredits the message and the messenger and (b) raises doubts about the story.  Stewart questioned whether CNBC’s stable of businesses reporters work on behalf of powerful corporations.  “Just because someone who mocks authority says something doesn’t make it so,” call Stewart’s remarks “completely out of line.”  Zucker gets it wrong:  If Cramer raised doubts CNBC’s corporate sponsors or, for that matter, the legitimacy of the stock market, that would be blasphemous or “completely out-of-line.”  There’s nothing out-of-line for Stewart to question whether CNBC’s reporting reflects the prerogatives of its corporate sponsors.  It’s out-of- line for the New York Times to print “newsworthy” articles about the merits of a drug when the drug maker spends millions in advertising, expecting a front-page news story.

            Zucker felt inclined to rehabilitate his network because Stewart raised some serious doubts without Cramer rushing to CNBC’s defense.  During the last market meltdown in 2000, Goldma Sach’s Abbey Joseph Cohen routinely hyped stocks on CNBC before the market crashed, taking the Dow down from 12,750 in Feb. 2000 to about 7,500 in July 2003.  No one questioned CNBC’s relationship to Goldman Sachs, offering Cohen almost unlimited daily access.  Calling his reporters “terrific” and the networkd a “go-to” place for financial news Zucker continued his diatribe against Stewart at the McGraw-Hill Media Summit in Manhattan.  “It’s unfair to CNBC and to the business media in media in general,” said Zucker.  “I don’t think you can blame what happened here on the business media,” stating the obvious, deliberately missing Stewart’s point about CNBC’s cheerleading.

            Zucker’s vociferous defense of CNBC raises more eyebrows for what it says about Cramer’s poor showing on “The Daily Show.”  Cramer did little to rehab CNBC, while Stewart reminded viewers that market manipulation is real and dangerous to ordinary investors.  Instead overreacting, Zucker should have acknowledged Stewart’s criticism as valid, promising to balance cheerleading with healthy criticism for CNBC’s viewers.  “When there is a lot of red on the screen, historically people don’t want to watch that,” said Zucker, admitting, in effect, that it’s tough to make hay in bear markets.  Stewart took on one of the loudest pro-Wall Street voices on CNBC, asking him to admit he’s more cheerleader than news analyst.  Cramer never disputed Stewart’s criticism.  Zucker’s attack shows that Stewart hit a raw nerve, exposing the ugly side of CNBC’s business news coverage.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2002 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.