Jim Cramer Mad Money Review

[HowsMusic4U]

Jim Cramer has become an embarrassment
Commentary: He has crossed the line from harmless entertainer
E-mail | Print | | Disable live quotes By Jon Friedman, MarketWatch
Last Update: 12:01 AM ET Jun 16, 2006


LOS ANGELES (MarketWatch) -- CNBC's Jim Cramer has finally crossed the line from harmless entertainer to public embarrassment.
This man seriously needs a reality check.
It pains me to write this because I like and respect Cramer. I have no ancient grudge against the man.
Once, Cramer was a welcome relief from the standard television business news reports. He was bombastic, God knows, but his deep knowledge of the stock market could cover up for his shtick. It included loud buzzers, bells and, of course, the sounds of bulls, when Cramer felt bullish, as well as other eccentricities.
But he has gone too far.
I caught his act -- and that's exactly what his daily program "Mad Money" has degenerated into -- the other day. He was in the midst of a rant against the new Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke.
Within seconds, Cramer was carrying on to the point where an uninitiated viewer might fear that he would have a heart attack on camera. But experienced Cramer-watchers know this is simply cornball Jim doing his thing.
Disconcerting
What I found disconcerting was when Cramer pulled out a box of Uncle Ben's rice and made a mockery of the Fed -- which, natch, was the whole idea. Still, this prop seemed to be way over the line.
Yes, Cramer's schmaltzy use of bells and whistles and the like is silly and goofy -- but, as I see it, ultimately harmless. On a good day, it can seem like good fun. But the bit with the rice box was preening gone amok because he so blatantly exploited Bernanke -- as if the Fed chairman existed solely to be a player on Cramer's show.
CNBC must hate this kind of griping. To the network, Cramer is nothing less than a godsend.
CNBC has faced pressure to keep its core viewers and find a way -- any way -- to attract eyeballs after the close of the stock market at 4:00 p.m., Eastern Time. Its primetime record is abysmal, epitomized by the likes of tennis star John McEnroe. His talk/variety show on CNBC was one of the biggest high-profile flops in modern cable TV history.
Cramer's show is on so often, in fact, that it seems to run on a film loop. CNBC is desperate to achieve any sort of a buzz with critics and audiences. The notion that a nondescript, balding (not that there is anything wrong with that, mind you), opinionated, bellowing Wall Street refugee could somehow get people excited about the stock market probably came as much of a surprise to the CNBC executives as to the rest of us.
General Electric (GE : General Electric Company
News , chart, profile, more
Last: 33.93-0.18-0.53%

4:01pm 06/16/2006

Delayed quote dataAdd to portfolio
Analyst
Create alertInsider
Discuss
Financials
Sponsored by:
GE33.93, -0.18, -0.5%) , CNBC's parent, is also ecstatic. Media critics have suggested over the years that GE might eventually have no choice but to merge CNBC and MSNBC, its flagship cable news operations, as a way to save money.
MSNBC has been a disappointment to the parent corporation, which prides itself on maintaining a top-three position in all of its businesses, whether the venture is selling toasters or manufacturing systems for defense electronics.
The news channel installed Dan Abrams, the host of "The Abrams Report on MSNBC and a legal correspondent, to supervise the underachieving entity. He replaced Rick Kaplan, who had previously run CNN. NBC News had expected Kaplan to re-energize MSNBC, but the network continued to languish far beyond Fox News and CNN (TWX : time warner inc com
News , chart, profile, more
Last: 16.96-0.15-0.88%

4:08pm 06/16/2006

Delayed quote dataAdd to portfolio
Analyst
Create alertInsider
Discuss
Financials
Sponsored by:
TWX16.96, -0.15, -0.9%) .
Pizzazz
CNBC needed someone like Cramer to give the network some pizzazz, for sure. After all, think about it: How many days can viewers stand to see their favorite stocks falling?
After the Internet bubble burst in 2000, some viewers (illogically) blamed CNBC for their woes, saying the network contributed to the illusory run-up by endlessly broadcasting the virtues of tech-stocks investments.
So when Cramer came along and injected both a strong personality and an equities expertise, the ratings soared and CNBC had accomplished a slam-dunk victory.
Cramer, too, flourished. He took to his role as Howard ("I'm as mad as hell and I'm NOT GONNA TAKE IT ANY MORE!") Beale meets Warren Buffett, like he was born for it.
At first, I thought he was doing a lot of good for the investing audience as well. Cramer hit on a formula to demystify the stock market and make it understandable and even fun. I even wrote a column in this space a year ago, to that effect. So, understand that, in no way, am I a quixotic Cramer-basher or a CNBC-basher.
It will be interesting to see how this situation plays itself out. Right now, everyone appears to be winning, despite my protests. Cramer has become a household name -- a Louis Rukeyser on steroids. CNBC is getting what it wants -- lots of publicity and an anchor in the off-stock market hours. Plus, the viewers are amused and, with any luck, well informed about the nuances of the investing world.
The only one who loses here is me -- because I think Cramer has become a caricature of himself. I hope he changes my mind soon, but I won't hold my breath.
MEDIA WEB QUESTION OF THE DAY: Do you think Jim Cramer has crossed the boundary from harmless fun to buffoonery?
FRIDAY STORY OF THE WEEK: "Chandlers Demand Breakup of Tribune" by Joseph Menn (Los Angeles Times, June 15). Move over "Dallas." Move over, "Dynasty." This is the media biz's version of a primetime soap opera of ego, money, power, legacy and vanity. As long as none of us is remotely involved in the wackiness, it should be a lot of fun to follow -- from a safe distance.
A READER RESPONDS to my column about Conde Nast's business magazine, Portfolio, which will debut next year: "I think Portfolio will succeed. The three incumbents (BW, Fortune, Forbes) all seem to think that the role of a weekly business magazine is to break news. But the half-life of business news is now measured in minutes as it breaks globally across the internet. And all three have steadily shortened article length, even for features, to the point where much of their analysis (which a weekly CAN do) feels to me breathless and a tad superficial. If Portfolio can cover business with 'the writing of The New Yorker plus the production values and photography of Vanity Fair,' it'll be a must-read. Plus, it's Conde Nast. If they can't sell ads, who can? That said, I expect a VERY different ad mix than in the Big Three." John Voelcker
(Media Web is published on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. The column will next appear on June 21)
Jon Friedman is a senior columnist for MarketWatch in New York.

http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?dist=newsfinder&siteid=google&guid=%7B64DF6...