A few days ago I blogged on the TV battle in the United States between Jim Cramer and Jon Stewart. Well now the aftermath appears to be even bigger than the event itself with a wikipedia edit war started on the battle, the press secretary of President Obama being asked for comment, and it being reported in the little local newspaper, the New Zealand Herald. (yes little (when compared on a global scale)).

The full story is here:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=10562013

First came the imperial marching music and a fiery explosion.

“You’ve watched snippets of them for days, or meant to after your friends sent you the link,” a voice boomed with mock gravity. “Tonight, the week-long feud of the century comes to a head.”

It was a comically absurd drum roll for what, on the surface, was merely a squabble between TV presenters.

In one corner, Jim Cramer, the closest thing to a celebrity in US financial journalism. In the opposite corner, Jon Stewart, satirist and host of the fake news programme The Daily Show. But unlike many a big fight, this one surpassed the hype. Nothing less than financial reporting itself was put on trial – and found wanting.

Cramer, who dispenses raucous advice to investors on the Mad Money show on the business channel CNBC, was eviscerated by a serious and genuinely angry Stewart.

Meek and contrite, Cramer was pummelled like a rope-a-dope over his profession’s failure to be an effective watchdog of Wall Street.

The interview was one of those classic television moments that crystallised the public mood. Stewart articulated the anger and bewilderment of millions of Americans who now feel ripped off and afraid. He framed the question that everyone wanted asked: how were the financial masters of the universe allowed to pursue their ruinous behaviour unchallenged for so long?

It caught the attention of the White House, prompted a frenzy among bloggers, and soul-searching in the media, who failed to spot the biggest story of a lifetime or warn the public.

CNBC and other supposedly objective journalists stood accused of complicity with big business, belonging to a cosy coterie that egged on chief executives and fanned the flames of excess.

The interview has also burnished Stewart’s reputation as the last best hope in the media when it comes to, in the earnest phrase of news network CNN, “keeping them honest”.

James Moore, a former TV news correspondent, blogged on the Huffington Post: “Jon Stewart has set new standards for both comedy and journalism. Oddly, he was originally supposed to just make us laugh on Comedy Central. He’s done that, but Stewart has also figured out that some jokes are sad as well as too important not to tell. But he’s not supposed to be doing the job of reporters.”

For years Stewart has been building a reputation as the one-man antidote to what many regard as bland and talk-heavy US news channels. During last year’s presidential election as Barack Obama, John McCain and other politicians queued up to appear on The Daily Show, a headline in the New York Times asked: “Is Jon Stewart the Most Trusted Man in America?”

His assault on Wall Street began in earnest with a classic Daily Show technique: a series of juxtaposed clips revealing incompetence and hypocrisy.

Stewart dissected the channel’s mistakes, in which it made bullish statements about the market and investment banks before they collapsed. He added: “If I only followed CNBC’s advice. I’d have a million dollars today – provided I’d started with $100 million.”

Such is his influence, in the next days ratings for Mad Money went down 10 per cent in the 25-to-54 demographic. But Cramer, a former hedge fund manager, is not one to take barbs lying down. Known for his hyperactive style, he declared war with the sarcastic riposte: “Oh, oh, a comedian is attacking me! Wow! He runs a variety show!”

As the media stoked up the row, a showdown was set for last Saturday.

Stewart showed the instincts of a journalistic veteran. He charged that CNBC knew what was going on behind the scenes on Wall Street but failed to tell the public. He accused CNBC hosts of abandoning their journalistic duties.

Cramer proffered feeble mea culpas and acknowledged they could do better. But Stewart produced footage of a 2006 interview with TheStreet.com, in which Cramer described certain barely legal things a hedge fund manager might do to work the market to his advantage.

He launched an eloquent assault that struck at the very foundations of the American financial press and television.

“Listen, you knew what the banks were doing, yet were touting it for months and months – the entire network was.”

“For now to pretend that this was some sort of crazy, once-in-a-lifetime tsunami is disingenuous at best, and criminal at worst.”