On Friday, my colleague Ryan wrote up what was wrong with the insta-coverage of Cramer v. Stewart (Last Thursday Night’s Edition), including what Ryan called the “superficial” take by New York Times TV critic Alessandra Stanley. For a thoughtful take by another TV critic, have a look at this blog post by Time’s James Poniewozik, who found the Stewart-on-Cramer interview “most fascinating as a discussion about how business journalism in particular and journalism in general are done in America,” and highlights “a few of Cramer’s responses” which he found “especially eye-opening, not just as they relate to business news but to problems that journalism has generally.” Worth a read.
‘See you on the other side’ - Meet Jessica Lum, a terminally ill 25-year-old who chose to spend what little time she had practicing journalism
#Realtalk: This is the best moment to be in journalism - The old stuff isn’t coming back, but that’s okay
Streams of consciousness - Millennials expect a steady diet of quick-hit, social-media-mediated bits and bytes. What does that mean for journalism?
Sticking with the truth - How ‘balanced’ coverage helped sustain the bogus claim that childhood vaccines can cause autism
An ink-stained stretch - Can Aaron Kushner save the Orange County Register—and the newspaper industry?
This is the best moment to be in journalism (25)
The WSJ editorial page hits rock bottom (19)
Stop with the Jew-ranking already!
“There are some lists that have helped Jews in the past, including, most notably, Schindler’s, but…”
Please continue pronouncing ‘gif’ any way you please
We are all correct
The New York Times told me to take this down
“If you wouldn’t mind using another publication to advertise your infringement tool, we’d appreciate it”
In AP, Rosen investigations, government makes criminals of reporters
“[A]s flagrant an assault on civil liberties as anything done by George W. Bush’s administration”
CJR's Guide to Online News Startups
Uptown Messenger – Hyperlocal news for a neighborhood in New Orleans
Who Owns What
The Business of Digital Journalism
A report from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism
Questions and exercises for journalism students.
the link to the Time piece is toasted:
Page not Found
The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.
* The Columbia Journalism Review website was recently redesigned. Go to the new home page and look for links to the information you want.
* If you typed the page url, check the spelling.
* Click the Back button to try another link.
#1 Posted by woody, CJR on Mon 16 Mar 2009 at 06:10 PM
Thanks, Woody. Link is now fixed.
#2 Posted by Liz Cox Barrett, CJR on Mon 16 Mar 2009 at 06:13 PM
Once Jon Stewart had aimed himself at Cramer's failure to ring the alarm about financial derivatives, he concentrated on that topic and only that topic with mono-maniacal fixity, and anything else Cramer may have mentioned in the interview disappeared into Stewart's self-righteous indignation, which was apparently shared with equal obliviousness to anything else by his audience and every blogger in the the so-called liberal blogosphere.
There's Cramer talking about "kangaroo courts" for Bear Stearns and Goldman Sachs, and Stewart completely blows it off. Cramer wants to "star chamber" their sorry butts, and Stewart just changes the subject. Cramer says he provided information to the DOJ about exactly which crimes have been committed, and how they can be prosecuted, and Stewart does not want to hear it.
But really, once their peculiar delight in watching one TV clown beat down another wore off, didn't any of the pundits who celebrated Stewart's diatribe masquerading as an interview ever wonder...
What sort of information did Cramer pass on to the Department of Justice?
Would that info actually help with speedy prosecution of the weasels at Goldman Sachs and Bear Stearns and Bank of America and AIG who destroyed the American economy?
Cramer has all sorts of inside information about the chief executives of all those financial institutions, based on dozens of interviews on and off the record, but Stewart didn't want to hear about any of it, because...
Jon Stewart is just a TV clown, and the pundits who celebrated his useless "interview" wouldn't recognize a real story if it bit them on the... neck.
#3 Posted by Jacob Freeze, CJR on Tue 17 Mar 2009 at 12:48 PM