samsung finesse

On a day when IBM's reportedly mulling a buyout of Sun Microsystems, Uncle Ben Bernanke decides to print another $300 billion or so, and Congress gets a chance to throw spitballs at the weasels at AIG, there are better things to do than mock NBC's Jeff Zucker as an empty suit. samsung finesse

But after reading the synopsis of Zucker's remarks Wednesday criticizing Jon Stewart for eviscerating the goofs who predominate on CNBC, it's not even fair. How can one resist?

I don't want to prejudice you (just yet) so here's how BusinessWeek reported the story:


Jeff Zucker, the chief executive of NBC Universal, is calling comedian Jon Stewart's attacks on business network CNBC "incredibly unfair." At a media conference Wednesday in New York, Zucker said "The Daily Show" host's recent rips on CNBC, its "Mad Money" host Jim Cramer and business media in general were "completely out of line."

Zucker went on to say that while "everyone wants to find a scapegoat," he defended the home team. The suggestion that the business media or CNBC was responsible for the economic meltdown, he said, was "absurd."

On the yuckster scale, that one is off the charts. I realize that Zucker can't come out in public and say, "Well, the truth is that Jim Cramer is a clueless clown" or that "Dennis Kneale doesn't have enough sense to tie his shoes, let alone offer financial advice." (The truth is that Zucker wouldn't find an awful lot of people jumping ugly if he did. Maybe one day.)

I monitor CNBC each day as part of my job. And after watching the channel's coverage nearly every day since the late 1990s, I can tell you that Zucker is full of malarkey. He claims that CNBC has "distinguished itself" in its coverage of the crisis and the economy over the last two years. Now that's a comedic touch that even Stewart would applaud.



Distinguished? The only personalities at CNBC who don't seem to be smoking the funny stuff before going on air are Mark Haynes, Steve Liesman, and David Faber. That's it. The rest of the forgettable bunch over there take dictation from Wall Street. Did CNBC cause the crash? Of course not. But the track record of empty-headed prognosticating and cynical sniping at anyone daring to take a more critical look at the economy speaks for itself. Until everything came unglued last fall, the economists Robert Shiller, who called the housing bubble, and Nouriel Roubini, who called the stock collapse, often served as pinatas for sundry CNBC cheerleaders trying to pump up the noise.

Stewart, who has had a lot of fun at CNBC's expense the last couple of weeks, obviously struck a nerve with his lampooning. The subject clearly wasn't to Zucker's liking, but the bigger question is why it takes a fake newsman to point out the channel's litany of screw-ups.

Instead of circling the wagons, Zucker and his management team should take a long look at the content CNBC puts out. A public skewering was long overdue, though I'm sure that CNBC will survive (and probably thrive) this episode. Will it improve? One can only hope. Meanwhile, this one is another asterisk in the lengthening bill of particulars against the quality of U.S. journalism. Note to the Zuck-meister: The fact that you don't get what Stewart's talking about is yet one more reason to worry about the future of the mainstream media.
Charles Cooper has covered technology and business for more than 25 years. Before joining CNET News, he worked at the Associated Press, Computer & Software News, Computer Shopper, PC Week, and ZDNet. E-mail Charlie.
Topics: Things people say, Business currentsTags: Jeff Zucker,NBC,CNBC,Jim CramerShare: Digg Del.icio.us Reddit Yahoo! Buzz
Recent posts from Coop's Corner
How new tech standards wind up stillborn
Facebook COO on redesign: Still figuring it out
Search start-up edging close to prime time?
Does D.C. get energy independence? Pickens is of two minds
Blogging for dollars: Church-state line still valid?
IBM's new sales pitch: We want to sell you less
Ubuntu planning move to the cloud
Imagining the end of high-cost computing? Related
From CNET
Microsoft touches more on Windows 7 samsung finesse
Jim Cramer’s full explanation of stock market manipulation
Apple sued over exploding iPod Touch
From around the web
Stewart/Cramer: Who’s This Song About? TIME.com - Tuned In
Jon Stewart Thwaps Jim Cramer Washington Post Blogs - Achenblog
More related postspowered by SphereAdd a Comment (Log in or register) 25 comments by Romriech March 18, 2009 2:20 PM PDT
Amen. The thing is, Jon Stewart is the best journalist on TV. He's even critical of the Obama administration in a fair and even-handed way.
Reply to this comment by karpenterskids March 18, 2009 5:10 PM PDT
He wasn't always that way during the campaign, but now that Obama's president, and there's nothing anyone can do about it, he's doing a good job as far as criticism and jibes go.

Even I'm impressed. :)
by ordaj March 18, 2009 2:28 PM PDT
Sadly, Charles, it's because in Capitalism it fast becomes less about the quality of the product than the money that can be made.

The whole idea is to get something out there and make money off of it. From there, it becomes about squeezing more money out of it and monetizing all the correlaries rather than whatever the product was. So, you get (with TV), not offending sponsors and doing everything possible to please sponsors and getting more money out of sponsors. And how can they supplement the money they get from the sponsors with add-ons.

What about the product, though? Never mind that, money's being made.
Reply to this comment by mediocrates--2008 March 18, 2009 2:46 PM PDT
Yep. Communism now.... there was a model of efficiency and consumer responsiveness
by rubenerd March 18, 2009 9:14 PM PDT
Yes of course mediocrates--2008, the only alternative to unfettered capitalism is communism, sheesh!

In all seriousness though ordaj is right on the money, it's become milking the cash cow rather than producing quality products and nowhere else is this more obvious than in the traditional media industry. I could talk about music companies at this point too, but we all know that to death.
by fuzzyCWD March 20, 2009 6:07 PM PDT
in the words of Homer J Simpson..."dough"
by Dave_man1123 March 18, 2009 2:32 PM PDT
I bash a lot of CNET articles, but this is the best one I have read in along time.

Zucker saying that CNBS didn't cause the financial meltdown is irrelevant. The fact is that they had the knowledge and expertise to know that this was in the making. They may not have had the foresight to understand how bad it would be, but they had a responsibility to report the risks to the public the risks that were being taken with their money. CNBC failed the public. CNBC (among others) failed to report the reality of the situation. Furthermore, it seems that they failed to report the reality of the situation because they had ulterior motives.

I love Jon Stewart. Why the hell is he doing this type of investigating reporting? Because the people that are supposed to be are not doing it. It's not fair to him. I look forward to the day that he can safely retire to fart jokes and other nonsense. I'm sure he does too.
Reply to this comment by rmva March 18, 2009 2:33 PM PDT
CNBC needs to explain clearly and repeatedly that their target market is day-traders and that every piece of advice their book-talkers give you has a shelf life of 12 hours.
Reply to this comment by dumbspammers March 18, 2009 3:04 PM PDT
Your shelf-life estimate is two orders of magnitude too great; four-and-a-half minutes is much closer to the mark. CNBC's "financial advice" would quickly ruin anyone who didn't have a dedicated buy-and-sell bot (and a couple of million they could afford to lose). samsung finesse
by myles taylor March 18, 2009 2:39 PM PDT
Yea I agree. They have their heads up where the sun doesn't shine and they need to pull them out and actually do some decent reporting.
Reply to this comment by cowspeak March 18, 2009 2:42 PM PDT
CNBC is totally not a trusted source. I've been an investor for 30 years and the stuff they promote is unreal.
Reply to this comment by CreativeGreenius March 18, 2009 2:59 PM PDT
First off, like Cramer himself in the Stewart interview I can't believe what a gutless, whining girly man Zucker has become on this issue. Talk about two big mouth blowhards who have rolled over and offered up their soft, pink bellies for the gutting as they emasculate themselves in the age old loser's tradition. These former bully boys who were so prone to shouting their own praise have been completely and utterly unmasked as wussy wimps without either the courage or the balls to defend themselves.

Bravo to Stewart for exposing them with nothing more than the courage to tell the truth.

Zucker jumped the shark a long time ago and has lost whatever touch he might have once had. He's over and he'll be the last guy in the room to figure it out. The cluetrain stopped at his station every day, too bad Jeff never bothered to get on board.

Talk about a pair of quivering mice who have no idea what world they're now living in, it's Zucker and Cramer.
Reply to this comment by Doink42 March 18, 2009 3:01 PM PDT
Got a bad feeling we are in antebellum and this is merely the taunting. These CEO's need reality checks. Just saying something does not make the public swallow it. AND the public is now listening.
Reply to this comment by ghostofitpast March 18, 2009 3:36 PM PDT
The "reality check" is that NBC is in the entertainment business. There was a time when "NBC News" (which included "Today," believe it or not) was such a reputable brand that it was part of the essential diet for Washington insiders. However, that time is now so long in the past that most of your readers were probably born after it had elapsed! The irony is that Comedy Central is also in the entertainment business. However, they hired Stewart (and his supporting writers) to do satire; and Stewart happens to be a first-rate performer of satire (including the funny faces and fart noises). If you want to talk about "reality checks," the difference between Cramer and Stewart is that Stewart knows he is an entertainer!

http://therehearsalstudio.blogspot.com/2009/03/in-comedy-begins-responsibilities.html
by gorgeclimber March 18, 2009 4:01 PM PDT
Obviously Zucker is a screw-up just like that fool Cramer. Stewart was right-on.
Reply to this comment by martin_c_e March 18, 2009 4:19 PM PDT
Coop is just wrong on this one. CNBC and financial journalism in general is always boosting something; but they didn't cause this meltdown. The Fed did, with a lot of help from the US Congress over the last 30 years.
Stewart is just a clown while Cramer has a grasp of what the market is all about. Most Americans are totally clueless about the market. By the way for every bull on CNBC they have a naysayer at the same time.
Reply to this comment by charlie cooper March 18, 2009 6:56 PM PDT
as per my post, i'm not blaming the meltdown on cnbc. the scope of what transpired is far more complicated than being a knee jerk reaction to what bloviator A or B might say on CNBC. but i do contend that there are serious issues with the quality of their commentary & reportage.
by kannuc March 20, 2009 10:33 AM PDT
you have it the wrong way round - Stewart pointed out what a lack of grasp Cramer has, and, he's right. Cramer and the rest of CNBC are just shrills for Wall Street. An industry that so sickened me that I left my high paying management job because they didn't give a dam about the customer. It was all about making commissions.
by Solar1234abc March 18, 2009 4:24 PM PDT
Gentleman and Women, the first rule of not taking responsibility for one's or an organization's actions is to deny, deny, deny. Classic, yet basic Propaganda 101, which should be surprising to none, for CNET is in the Propaganda business; we all know this. There is no Journalism in MSM, we all know this.

To debate the specifics and the mems' Zuckerman is offering up is only propagating his red herrings; you know this-just thought I'd remind you.
Reply to this comment by NocturnalCT March 18, 2009 4:25 PM PDT
Yesterday Jon actually made fun of his own performance in the whole 'interview' with Cramer. Got to appreciate him taking himself not too seriously.

I have to give Cramer credit for showing up for that interview. He must have known he was going into a grinder. It's not like Jon is freewheeling, he's got a very sharp staff who provides lots of talking points before he gets started. I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of that :)samsung finesse

As for Zucker, well he's clearly a crybaby. How he ever made it to CEO is a miracle. Instead of admitting that their 'advise' has been horribly wrong and making a vague promise to do better he's taking genuine offense. Stupid. Now he looks like a fool. It could have been free advertising or he could at least have scored sympathy points.
Reply to this comment by Solar1234abc March 18, 2009 4:26 PM PDT
Put in more simple terms, Zucker ( sorry for getting his name wrong in my above ) is simply practicing: Deny and Misdirect 101. THIS IS WHAT LEADERSHIP DOES, you know this. lol
Reply to this comment by Goodbye Helicopter March 18, 2009 5:15 PM PDT
haha. Guys in suits suck again.
Zucker: FAIL
Reply to this comment by charodon March 18, 2009 8:43 PM PDT
Why does "bill of particulars" link right back to this story?
Reply to this comment by Len Bullard March 19, 2009 7:42 AM PDT
Ummm.... Charlie, do you remember when this site was a small company hyping the web bubble? Now you are hyping the cloud as hard as you can. Why? Sells ads.

We've all been participating in the race to the bottom of credible reporting.
Reply to this comment by DrollTroll March 24, 2009 9:11 PM PDT
Jon Stewart is basically an opportunist. I'm no fan of Jim Cramer or Wall St or the capitalist system, but it is easy to pick apart a clown like Cramer and the financial reporting industry in hindsight. Stewart asked Cramer rhetorically why he (Cramer) didn't know or realize the exorbitant returns couldn't just keep on going and Cramer replied because it had been going on like that from 1999 to 2007...which I find to be a plausible answer. If Stewart thought this was all illusory and fixed, he himself made no mention of such at any earlier time. He should've put his money where his mouth is like I did. In or around 1999 I made $1000 in AOL in 3 months (on a small investment); I sold, paid capital gains taxes, and felt great because I had made enough. I wasn't greedy and I wasn't fooled that it was something that was going to continue indefinitely. Also, I know markets are manipulated. I invested in the least manipulated or most managed entities--i.e. public utilities which are state regulated. The dividend was good but appreciation was small. However, I felt these were the least manipulable. So, did Stewart buy utilities or recommend such strategies? What would he have done from 1999 to 2007? Run with the herd no doubt. Doctors who just several years were recommending Vitamin E supplements may now be looking pretty foolish. It was the current state of knowledge then and everyone was doing it. Don't praise Stewart for Monday morning quarterbacking.
Reply to this comment See all 25 Comments >> Add a comment
Log in or create an account to post a comment.
Comment SUBMIT Click here to add another comment.
Popular discussions on CNET:
Microsoft goes after Mac on price in new ad

March 26, 2009 6:56 PM PDT

(375 recent comments)

Microsoft goes after Apple online too

March 27, 2009 11:41 AM PDT

(223 recent comments)

Earth Hour: Save a watt, and maybe the Earth

March 27, 2009 12:34 PM PDT
samsung finesse
(122 recent comments)

Tesla Motors CEO: Model S is cheaper than it looks

March 27, 2009 7:39 AM PDT

(92 recent comments)

Microsoft ad's 'average consumer' is an actress

March 27, 2009 9:00 AM PDT

(74 recent comments)

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Click here to review our Terms of Use.

Comment reply

Submit Cancel
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Click here to review our Terms of Use.
Report offensive content:
If you believe this comment is offensive or violates the CNET's Site Terms of Use, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the comment). Once reported, our staff will be notified and the comment will be reviewed.

Select type of offense:

Offensive: Sexually explicit or offensive language

Spam: Advertisements or commercial links

Disruptive posting: Flaming or offending other users

Illegal activities: Promote cracked software, or other illegal content

Comments (optional):

Report Cancel
E-mail this comment to a friend.
E-mail this to: (Separate multiple e-mail addresses with commas. Limited to 10 addresses.)


Your e-mail address:

Send me a copy of this message
Note: Your e-mail address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the e-mail and in case of transmission error. Neither your address nor the recipients's address will be used for any other purpose.samsung finesse

Add your own personal message: (Optional)

Hi, I found this user's comment on CNET and thought you might be interested in reading it. Send e-mail Cancel
Warning! You will be deleting this comment and all its replies (if applicable).
Click to delete FOREVER Cancel


Most Popular
Tesla Motors CEO: Model S is cheaper than it looks
FAQ: Conficker time bomb ticks, but don't expect boom
Top Google execs: $1 salary, no bonus, no options
Microsoft touches more on Windows 7
What Windows 7 might have looked like
images In a presentation at last week's Mix 09 event, a Microsoft designer traced the evolution of the company's new operating system.
What you should know about Conficker worm
faq Worm's latest variant is set to start hitting random domains on April 1. But security experts say the damage might not be as serious as the hype suggests.

Resource center from CNET News sponsors
Are you ready for what's next in your IT career?
Nationwide Openings at Booz Allen

Make a difference. Work with highly talented colleagues. Advance the state of IT. If you're ready to work with the best, explore career opportunities with Booz Allen Hamilton. Read more >



An unparalleled workforce
You will not find a more talented, collegial group of colleagues anywhere.

Strong values-based culture
Our ten core values define our firm and are embodied in everything we do.

Work that makes an impact
Our work supports the health, security, and well being of our nation.

Strong, sustained business performance
Booz Allen's US government business has enjoyed strong growth for over a decade.

Robust benefits package
Booz Allen Hamilton offers a choice of benefit plans and levels of coverage.

About Coop's CornerCharles Cooper has covered technology and business for more than 25 years. A graduate of Queens College and Columbia University, Cooper received the Excellence in Journalism award from the Northern California branch of the Society for Professional Journalists for column writing.

Subscribe via RSS
Click this link to view as XML.

Add this feed to your online news reader

Google Yahoo MSN Coop's Corner topicsBusiness currents
Culture
Play
Science
Technology
The latest silliness
Things people say