Stewart Vs Cramer on Daily Show, march 12.

[kandrathe]

Uh, yes? The intro of the episode even explicitly says something like '...in an attempt to drive up ratings so Comedy Central can raise it's advertising rate!'. If your claim is by getting higher ratings the show (or any show) can get more money and Stewart & Co. can get a higher salary, well yeah. That's how the game usually works.

Your original assertion however, makes it sound as if it's all a conspiracy, and Stewart is rubbing his hands in glee after the show, all monocled in his diamond encrusted tuxedo. I just don't see that description fitting him, granted that's only based on what little I know about the man personally. Maybe he does have a diamond tuxedo.

If I made $14 million a year, I'd at least have a tuxedo. Yes, I was assuming you understood how the game is played, and it is probable that Jon's contract as executive producer is tied to ratings and number of viewers. It would only be a conspiracy if CNBC and Viacom, Stewart's people and Cramer's people got together and calculated the risk/reward ratios.

However, I do see your original claim fitting better for someone like, Rupert Murdoch. Now that's a man who knows how to game and play all sides. Considering under the Fox Network, he owns both Fox News and the myriad of shows that viewers can complain about, usually to Fox News. Give him a really puffball lap cat, and we can have a real life Bond villain right there.

Whatever does it for you. Personally, I feel most fortune 500 CEO's would make good Bond villains, but then, I'm a cynics cynic.

I think we should differentiate between the shows and their creator, versus the people who are in charge of scheduling and advertising here. The idiots who say, consign a good show to timeslot hell to die a slow death, are rarely if ever the creators. FWIW, DVDs, web streaming and TIVO are threatening these 2 legged lampreys, and I for one hope the sooner the axe falls for these idiotic parasites, the better.

I agree. I was general and lumped the blood suckers in with the people who occasionally beat the system and get to produce something artistic.

Look, Stewart vs Cramer was not Nixon vs Frost. But the kernel of the episode, was not a showdown between the two. To reduce it down to 'oh it's just fake drama like WWE', is to overlook what the episode was really about. Besides, Cramer's pythons would not qualify him in Wrassling anyway, though he'd make a great manager archetype. Stewart probably couldn't cut it either, in or out of the ring. Now Colbert on the other hand...

Again, I'm a cynic, so I see most TV talk shows (Daily Show, Crossfire, Mad Money) as just cerebral"Wrasslin". They all seek to entertain with fake drama. Journalism and truth is dead, and to feign anger at Cramer for being an entertaining fool is... "Wrassling" to me. You even adopted subconciously the metaphor in your original post, "K.O. moments of the night for me..." I'm agreeing with your metaphor and calling it real.