Re:Don't Blame Jim Cramer
by aristus on Tuesday March 17, 2009 @03:01PM
(#520386)
The author is saying that no one at a high level knew the risks that were being taken off the books. Fair enough, that's something we need to fix. Apparently Sarbanes-Oxley didn't work.
But then the author tries to give Cramer a pass ("just an entertainer") by skipping Stewart's point: CNBC touts its talent as experts in financial news. Even the author goes back to calling Cramer a "financial journalist" a paragraph later. You don't get to quick-change between the suit of expertise and the fig-leaf of opinion.
If the CEO doesn't know when his own company is in trouble... that's news, right?
Re:Don't Blame Jim Cramer
by eli on Tuesday March 17, 2009 @03:23PM
(#520421)
Err, no, the author wasn't giving him a pass. He was saying just the opposite; that Cramer never should have copped to being an entertainer and that it was the result of a sort of "Stockholm Syndrome"
But then the author tries to give Cramer a pass ("just an entertainer") by skipping Stewart's point: CNBC touts its talent as experts in financial news. Even the author goes back to calling Cramer a "financial journalist" a paragraph later. You don't get to quick-change between the suit of expertise and the fig-leaf of opinion.
If the CEO doesn't know when his own company is in trouble... that's news, right?