Michael Jackson. Honestly.

Okay, it's easy to be cynical about the press coverage around Michael Jackson's death, but all I know is I'm still trying to get my head around those 3 words: 'Michael Jackson's death'. And it's not like I'm crying or sad or that I was a particular fan of his later work. But he was the first pop idol that I remember loving, he practically single-handedly legitimised the music video medium - and by extension, MTV - and he's always just 'been there'. I mean, 50 years old??? At a time when people tout 50 as the new 35? What???

It's funny - I think the reason people go mental when icons like Jackson die suddenly is because they act like background beacons - constantly giving out a signal which we miss when gone. So much so that all the platitudes I'm hearing simply don't convey how much emotion is there just swelling up like grief. I remember feeling that when living in London at the time of Princess Diana's death. The connection (because I see reporters asking people, 'why are you connected to him?') is simple - he was one of those beacons, a signal, always present, just a global pulse beat that people continually checked in on because of who and what he was.

I tell you what: I feel like I've been given a piece of information that my internal programming doesn't quite know how to process. I don't have the words, but felt the need to blog...

Does this make sense?

Leave Your #followFriday Stress Behind!

Another Friday is upon us. Even as I type this, thousands of people are constructing their #followFriday recommendations - indeed, the Antipodeans are already sending theirs out. While I love the 'lurve' coursing through the TwitterVerse, it can be a hectic gig. Especially with some of our more Twitterly Correct Police making suggestions on how best to recommend folks, while well intentioned, that actually only makes it worse because people are anxious not to offend people with their recs. 

Recently my good friend @MisterNoodle decided to discontinue the FollowFriday practice altogether. And truth be told, I can't blame him. I've taken to recommending people often throughout the week with the following hashtags (all have been created by me except where indicated):

#NeoFollowOne

#DeuxFollowTwo

#HeeHeeFollowThree

#CoreFollowFour

#FastFollowFive (@RickBakas/@MisterNoodle)

#SlickFollowSix (@StuBakerComedy)

#HeavenFollowSeven

#GreatFollowEight

#DivineFollowNine

#ZenFollowTen

I'll append a #FF to it if I feel like it, but it's not a mandatory thing.

And to those who would ask 'Why am I recommending them?', I say 'Because I do'. I really think it's a bit rude to ask people to justify recommendations. That I do should be enough, and with these numeric limits per hashtag, it should be easy to just look up bios and determine whether or not you want to follow.

Be advised: this may not be for you if your goal is to drive up follow numbers. Once I realised that I couldn't give the proverbial rat's backside, then it all made sense. The clouds parted, and I released my anguish.

Nowadays, I no longer dread Fridays. They've gone back to being the Death of the Week, as God intended, an event to look forward to - not another WorkDay to fret over.

Try these or make up your own - and register them at Tagalus (http://tagal.us)

The One Where @Zaibatsu Calls Us All Racists

Today's @Zaibatsu race discussion in Twitter definitely makes me think that America's preoccupation with race is simply dysfunctional.

Just to recap: @Zaibatsu - not exactly a wallflower when it comes to self-expression -  sent the below tweet. 

• 
  zaibatsu: I said aren't we all racists.... Well, I'm black and recently 3 black kids walked into a corner store, I was sacred. I do me best not 2 but.
  about 13 hours ago from TweetDeck · Reply · View Tweet

Now, to me, I didn't see anything wrong with someone expressing an opinion like that, and backing it up with further stronger sentiments, even those I don't agree with.  Alas, some folks chose to have aneurysms.  

Needless to say, the topic went viral: so much so that @Zaibatsu actually gave his phone number (a stroke of genius, IMO) so people could call him to discuss. And apparently, a LOT of Twitterers took him up on it - myself included. When we spoke, I stressed the need to distinguish between personal bias and racism. They aren't interchangeable, and it's dangerous to think they are - to do so diminishes what racism actually is and how it presents in organisational and institutionalised forms. It was an excellent exchange, took some points on board, and we left it at that.

So it was disappointing to see @Zaibatsu pursued by the TVPCD - TwitterVerse Politically Correctness Department.  While appreciating Twitter's very strong, Law Of Attraction, 'all is well with the Universe' contingent, some Twitterers went straight for @Zaibatsu's jugular, riffing off tweets like traffic wardens scratching out tickets close to quota time.  

No wonder tweets like the following started appearing:

• 
  joegerstandt: wow...we are just completely dysfunctional when it comes to discussing race in this country. completely. dysfunctional.
  about 3 hours ago from web · Reply · View Tweet

• (please note: I do not speak for @joegerstandt or his reason for tweeting this sentiment. TY.

NB: Imagine how the rest of the Anglophone world looked on with bemusement, as this kicked off as the Brits were starting their morning, while the Aussies and Kiwis were sorting their dinner!  (It's easy to forget that Twitter isn't exclusively American; when rants like this go on and on, it's an excellent window into American culture which sometimes informs, sometimes amuses, sometimes bewilders.) 

Take this RT from a Twitterer in Britain - a country with numerous ethnic groupings itself:

• 
  sillycows: RT @Cynnergies @zaibatsu Ah. BTW, I don't think everyone's racist, but Yanks seem to be obsessed with it.<>
  about 11 hours ago from web · Reply · View Tweet

To be sure, I'm less concerned about us trying to be like other nations, but we Americans have got our work cut out on some massive big-ticket items: our sleeves need to be rolled up and our minds focused as we restore our National Brand, because we're now competing with the likes of India and China for resources on one front as we struggle with the credit-crunch aftermath and provision of basic health care on the other.

So, let's have the conversations, by all means, but you know, sensibly. I especially want to have The One Where We Drop The Hyphen (e.g. Korean-American, African-American, Palin-American) and We All Just Get Over It -  but I digress... 

#FollowFriday Ode for @Sojourner9

His Avatar Calms

Such that I can't Help but Grin

Uncontrollably!

Haiku Day

Lovers, their kisses Viewed

With No Care How Judges Vote

Liberate their Souls.

The AutoDM: One Tweep's Rant

Yeah, it's a rant... here's the deal: Twitter's auto DM culture has made me very salty. It's like a really bad idea happening to really good people, only...you don't want to know  because you just want to strangle their handles until the vowels pop out! (That's Cynnergist talk for 'Unfollow'.)

On the back of having received so many of these, I couldn't help myself with the following tweet:

• 
  Cynnergies: Attention 2 new follows: If you #autoDM a product, my #unfollow will be so swift and bloodless, you'll actually thank me.
  about 4 hours ago from TweetDeck · Reply · View Tweet

I've heard Twitter being compared to a cocktail party, and it's a good metaphor.  You're at a soiree. You don't know anyone, because you heard about it via a friend of a friend of a cousin who's the colleague of a beekeeper. You get it. You go into this room of random conversations, and you size people up by what their clothing and bearing tell you about them (aka Twitter Bios): 

• the Really Beautiful Girl with inoffensive manners, 
• The Serious Business Guy with the Armani suit screaming moneymoneymoney, 
• The Spiritual Guru who's got a sense of humour as she entertains some folks with stories by the buffet table. 

Let's say all 3 look in your direction and you make eye contact with one or all 3 and everyone nods their heads in pleasant acceptance.  This moment would be the equivalent of following and being followed.

Now, would you actually make your next move by walking over to all of these distinct personalities by saying the same thing, like:

“Hi! Increase your followers by 16,000 in 30 days!”

or

“Go to this link to look at my grandma's new snuggie robe!"

or “Try this product to maximise your potential to a successful run on 'Britain's Got Talent'!

If you're not in the least psychotic, you wouldn't do this. Ever. If you disagree, then have a good weekend with lots and lots of vodka, because you are officially useless; you need to be with other lower primates compatible with your habitat.

While there aren't any fast rules on Twitter (yet), I do think it's prudent to approach the TwitterVerse with the same manners you'd treat people in the physical world. Am I being fussy? Maybe. But am I wrong? I don't think so.

Here are the categories I've seen so far in the DM space:

• The Polite HalloHallo – This person sends a fairly benign message hoping that you fulfil your inner Dalai Lama and with the sustenance of the Spirit Angels and the books touted on the Oprah Book Club, you evolve into the next incarnation of Buddha/Jesus/Elvis/Soupy Sales. These folks aren't the problem, so if this is you – move on, there's nothing to see here.

• The 'How Can I Help You?' vibe. These bleeding hearts approach like LOA terrorists, trafficking like businesses, all in the name of friendship - but that's okay, because it's All About You. Please... Chances are if you send out this kind of message, you risk putting people off because you want information from someone without giving ANY about yourself, and by doing it in an automated way, it comes across as banal and insincere and is arguably the phoniest form. At least the businesses are clear in what they're after.  What the heck is your deal? Why do you want to act as if you're my best friend? Why would you make me cry, write mournfully in my journal, listen to My Chemical Romance during the daytime after you make me realise that my life has been so bleak until you reached out to me and CARED about my life??? (Oh, the sadness, more kleenex...).

• The 'Please go to this site and help my business' vampires. As abhorrent as the emotional hijackers might be, this category inspired the rant, and these folks are making quick progress in lowering the TwitterTone. Think I'm exaggerating? Automated introductions are in aggregate making the Direct Messaging Service unusable because no 3^rd party Twitter client can distinguish between automated and manually typed messages. This creates too much inbound messaging noise for the Twitterer with more than, say, 500 follows to actually have off-line conversations without exposing key personal details in public (such as their email accounts or Skype/Gchat Ids) to get around the problem because they can't use the DM inbox. To prove this, how many Twitterers actually state in their bios that they don't return DMs?  Exactly.

So, Difficulty + Rudeness = I Ain't About To Click On ANYTHING You're Talking About.

The RTs and #TwiHighFives supportive of the above tweet suggest that others view this just as passionately. So if you see yourself in this, Beware. Rethink. Enjoy the Weekend. If You Can.

Surprise? What Surprise? Feedback on Obama's 100d Press Conference

Was watching last night while live tweeting - Thought Obama did an excellent presentation. Loved the New York Times' Jeff Zeleny's question: Obama's reaction when writing down 'enchanted' was dead priceless. But here's the thing: the one question that seemed frothy and light, was where I kind of freaked out a bit.. 

Thought the surprise answer was a spectacular fail. BO claimed surprise (35:10) at the number of critical issues that weren't apparent 18 months ago, particularly the financial crisis. What rubbish: the Bear Stearns fund bailout debacle kicked off in June 2007,  ultimately culminating in its Federal Reserve-brokered sale to JP Morgan Chase in March 2008 - with Lehman Brothers close on its heels. This was well before the presidential campaigns kicked off, all the candidates should've had a handle on this, and yes I do believe they should have seen this current crisis coming, especially a former candidate who was embraced quite warmly by the financial industry the way BO was.

While I think it's too early to judge the Administration, Obama's condescension towards partisanship and the politics of the Beltway seems petulant and beneath a sitting POTUS - especially coming from a former US Senator. That quirk only underscores how little his Senate career prepared him for his current role. It can't all be Bush's fault (were that it could...) or the fault of politics.

Makes me think of Ellis Cose's brilliant article, "12 Things", where he lists 12 rules of thumb on thriving in America. Number 9 talks about hard work, intelligence, competence not always being enough to get you the results you want. 

"...the general rule is that any organization (government, private business, educational or other) is essentially a social body that rewards those fully engaged in the game. To the extent we try to hold ourselves above that process, we end up losing..."

Obama would do well to commit that to memory. Or at least to his BlackBerry.

Twitter Follow Fever: Why The Numbers Don't Matter

Ahhhh, Back To Normal: 11 days after the Kutcher/CNN race, and Twitter hasn't crumbled, the Horsemen of the O-Prah-Colypse didn't show up, and the TwitterVerse is pretty much as it was Pre-Hoopla. Sure, Kutcher missed the point about Twitter: he's in no way the 'little guy' he portrayed himself to be, he's the Hollywood GoldenBoy he always was with a follow/follower profile that's textbook 'Celebrity' (e.g. he follows less than 0.007% of his follower population total). And sure, the Race was disruptive – hopefully those Tweeps who got caught up in the madness and inflicted their infectiousness on their follows can look back to that time as if from a fever dream and regret having been fooled into becoming a RSS feed on the behalf of someone whose overstated triumph wasn't quite the life-changing event they believed it was.

One quirk exposed by the Kutcher event to those outside the TwitterVerse and clarified for those within is this fixation on increasing follower volumes through whatever means necessary. Right now, a key TwitterVerse complaint is spamming promising “Get 30,000 followers in 30 days”, etc.

Follow The Leaders, But Which Ones?

But why is this important? The Twitter pundits who said that the 1 million follower mark made by a homegrown Twitterer would be a more meaningful event to the Internet than the @aplusk extravaganza were dead right. Some of the top candidates for that ribbon hover  around the 100,000 marker. But what does that really mean? Surely anyone with that many followers has lots of influence already with their followships...right? 

Well...I can think of at least 5 such Twitterers – all of whom I follow - whose ideologies or products I care absolutely nothing about. From my 10 weeks on Twitter (yes, I'm a relative newbie – but was on way before Oprah, thank you!), I get a sense that jacking up follower volumes is a serious commitment, but where's the benefit other than bragging rights. Something else: many of those Twitterers don't come across as distinctive personalities.  On the contrary, they can be rather benign, inoffensive, and just, you know, 'there'. NB: A notable exception is @brooksbayne: his ultra-conservative political tweeting can be polarising, but his followship numbers aren't necessarily an indicator of purist sympathetic tendencies (that an ideological agnostic such as myself follows him proves the point).

Enter the @Murnahan

An interesting Twitterer who has around 10,000 followers and is arguably more influential than most of the 100K Twitterers is Mark Murnahan. In the quest towards pulling out TwitterVerse's Excalibur sword, Murnahan's a candidate for a grass-roots King Arthur. According to @murnahan's bio, he's a SEO expert, and so far, has no plans for media domination. What's cool about Murnahan is that he truly engages his followers: as of today, he follows around 10,000, with a very high percentage of reciprocation. And his is a real, authentic personality: intelligent, inquisitive, communicative, and can be – on occasion – profoundly silly. His 'Dear Tweeps' love tweets are becoming the stuff of TwitterLore.

Murnahan: Dear Tweeps: I love you so much. If you were here I would hug you until you shart! http://bit.ly/kprDG (expand) #love

1 day ago from TweetDeck · Reply · View Tweet

(Charming! - Ed.)

Scatological insights aside, Murnahan 'gets' Twitter culture: his blog was an oasis of sanity during the Kutcher/CNN race, and his post-event analysis was quite possibly the Best In Show on the day. Being your authentic self on Twitter means that you risk alienating people, which I'm sure he does; he isn't some bland avatar precisely because he is himself. Equally, he isn't a politico-spammer or RSS feed either, he's well-rounded enough for people to connect with him. And it's this level of connection that shows what Twitter can be: a place to connect with others as well as develop a brand, where high numbers don't really count for as much as folks seem to think it does. Hopefully the TwitterVerse can get this lesson before I get yet another DM spammer promising Kutcher-like results – which brings me to my #TwitterTip for today: be yourself, don't worry about the numbers.  Especially if you wouldn't know what to do with them anyway! 

Bishop's Checkmate On a Parky Pawn

What was Parky thinking? The so-called 'Sir' Michael Parkinson - clearly with not enough activities to fill out his retirement schedule - took it upon himself to publicly disrespect the late Jade Goody as representing the worst in Britain. Goody - who lost her bout with cervical cancer at the age of 27 this Mother's Day - was buried this weekend.  Parky clearly didn't wait for the ground over her grave to harden - with ants in his pants he went to the papers and slammed a dead mother for being stupid, with 2 young children and a grieving family watching in shock. 

Was pleased to see Bishop Blake stand up for Goody in his blog for what was an astonishingly poor show of decency from the ParkBag. For all his derision of Goody's background, I was very surprised to read about Parky's own history - dishcloth roots and all.  Well, Goody achieved more by 27 in making the public aware of the devastation of cervical cancer - her battle has already saved lives.  Not sure if watching the likes of David Beckham on 'Parkinson' really matches up (NB: Posh and Becks??? Talk about working class Britain !).

Well, Parky - you may be called 'Sir' these days, but you're definitely no 'Gentleman'.  

AIG'S Jake DeSantis: Should We Feel Sorry For Him or What

So, what to make of AIG's soon-to-be-former EVP Jake DeSantis and his resignation letter? I bet more Americans read that letter than read the transcript from Tuesday's POTUS press conference, which may be fair enough...

Upon first review, I felt very sympathetic towards the guy because, IMO, these AIG 'bonuses' are a spectacular red herring in the first instance; they were retainment payments and in fact should have been reviewed as part of the TARP fund allocation process and assumed renegotiated.  NB: Strike 1 against the current Administration for not catching that one...

But a second gaze screams,  'Give Me A Break', and for the following reasons:

• JD's point about not being responsible for the credit default swap transactions. Please. While the average layperson may not know the ins-and-outs of financial transaction management, some of us more knowledgeable in derivatives - who aren't too happy with recent events, mind - do.  Many credit derivative transactions are and were hedged by equity products and as the head of commodity/equity trading, JD not only knows this but it's not unreasonable to think that many of the CDS positions were being hedged by trades in his desk.  So his 'not-my-fault' stance' seems patently inappropriate.
  
• JD's EVP status. The letter's tone seemed to come from someone who while not quite an ingenue, wasn't a fully seasoned racehorse either.  If JD did indeed come from humble beginnings as he states, then his rise in AIG was fairly fast-tracked if not meteoric.  Meaning that the doe-eyed indignation therein is about as transparent as being on the inside of Harry Potter's Invisibility Cloak.  If investment banking is a reasonable comparative culture (and I think we can assume it is), no one rises to that level in that time-span without swimming in-school with all the Big Fishes and having his soul bought and paid for with the bill of lading long discarded.  Jake, if you agree that you were overpaid previously, then you clearly accepted your fate or fortune - complaining now just makes you seem overwrought and underwhelming.

So a weird one all round - I can't possibly understand what JD was thinking by making this public (because AIG sure as hell didn't...).  A reader from the NYTimes - Rolf from NY - said it best to sum up:

"If your company accepts tens of billions from taxpayers, consider your bonus payments renegotiated."

Initial reaction to Obama's Press Conference

In brief: - it's clear to me that Obama still feels the need to prove himself or validate himself as the POTUS ("As long as I'm in this office" - what is this all about???).

Generally wasn't impressed but wasn't offended. More later...

60ft Penis found on Berkshire roof. (Yeah, you heard me...)

So what's the going rate for punishment these days: beat a kid up in school, no cable privileges for a month.  Phallic graffito on the roof of your parent's £1m home? Continue travelling at your parents' expense with the threat of cleanup duty upon return. 

It's a cosmic oversight that I didn't have these parents growing up.  World domination would have been not too far behind, I reckon...

Truth to Power - 'Casino' Style

Looking at all the bonus drama around AIG and Merrill Lynch, it's so obvious that people in the Obama administration are really good at putting out words and phrases that sound elegant and polite.  Another we need to throw in there is 'criminality' - see, didn't you feel better when you just let it roll out of your mouth? (BTW, Go Andrew Cuomo - keep up the good work.)

During Obama's Leno performance, he mentioned that 'nobody was really looking at this (CDO) problem and now we've got to fix it'.  Rubbish.  Say what you want about Wall Streeters, they are by and large some of the most educated business people on the planet. Trust me, somebody was definitely looking at it - a lot of somebodies in fact.  So, Incompetence, Oopsie-daisy, or the Big Scam - are we seriously thinking there's a choice here?

And then there's the Ace Rothstein Way...

Made me think of a line in Martin Scorsese's 1995 film, 'Casino' (or, 'Goodfellas-goes-Vegas-with-Sharon-Stone's-best-role' movie) where Ace Rothstein (Robert de Niro) fires a Good Ol' Boy for letting 3 slot machines cash out on the same day:

 "Listen, if you didn't know you're bein' scammed, then you're too f*****' dumb to keep this job; if you did know, you were in on it - Either way...YOU'RRRRE OUT!'  

Ahh, that's what I'm talkin' about... time to go gangsta. 

Obama, No More Roadshows,Please?

Still reeling from last week's media offensive from Obama.   What more does this guy need in order to get that the election process is over?  Stop smoothing me, mate.  

And this AIG debacle is not inspiring any confidence - 90% tax on bonuses? Should have been sorted as part of the TARP deal. End of Story.

We get that we handed you a plate of hot mess - but hey, you went for that puppy with an enthusiasm normally displayed only by very hungry babies who can smell the teat and just can't get a grip on the nip.

No More Shows.  No More Rush. No More Distractions.  Get on with it.  

 

Mitt Romney on Obama: 'King' of the Obvious

Well, leave it to Mr Romney to state the proverbial as if it were not so to everyone else.  On 'Larry King Live' last night, our man Mitt informed the world that President Obama - you know, tall, skinny, 'distinctive' ears, took office like 50 days or so ago? Yeah, him - is 'learning on the fly' in his current job.  Well, I'm glad he cleared that up: I was so pissed off when I didn't make into the University for Fledgling Presidents, or UFP. Not that I'd have the credentials, mind, but one could dream... NB For the Star Trekkers amongst you, UFP does not, repeat, does not stand for "United Federation of Planets", got it??

Not that I'm a Dem or anything, but hearing Romney speak so condescendingly about Obama's time management: "...he should be focusing on the economy and not doing magazine covers" - well, I wonder what he thought of former President Bush and key members of his Cabinet doing a spread for Vanity Fair's Annie Leibovitz 4 months after 9/11:

NB They did scrub up well back then, didn't they? And Big Kahuna Shout to VP Cheney for making the POTUS give up his Big Chair so that he could - hey, wait a minute, is this the moment when...when... Oh Graydon Carter?... Actually that's a WHOLE other blog o' hot mess...

Anyhoo, I can't help but wonder if Romney gave similar advice to Bush wrt the whole let's-find-Osama-and-punish-him palaver, or Hurricane Katrina, or the Lehman's debacle... well, I could continue but it's a blog, not a thesis...

Obama on Leno: Irresistible Charmer 2.0

Checked out Obama's appearance on the 'Tonight' show - was surprised to find myself in full charmed mode by Mr Prez - and anyone who knows me personally is reading this as the fairly heretical statement it is (NB must let them know that no one's broken into my account - yet...)

Was just me, though, or did he seem almost 'too' comfortable holding court on television with the old master Leno?  From his first acknowledgement of applause, I was struck on how poised he was with the joking schtick - even though granted, it wasn't as if it were 'Meet The Press' (RIP Tim Russert, but I digress...).

Still, fairly enjoyable viewing... my internal jury's still out on the merits of a sitting POTUS going on the talk show circuit, talking about the Tar Heels taking the NCAA Championships and the skills required of prepubescent girls in the art of Starburst distribution, but at least he had the whole leadership and common sense vibe working for him.  Not sure about that 90% tax bit on AIG bonuses, though - Leno really did well to voice a concern on the US Govt doing something like that - as they say, today's exception becomes tomorrow's precedent... but hey, it's only been 59 days... I'll give him to at least 80 before I load up on the slings and arrows.  PS POTUS - Don't let another AIG go past your desk in the meantime.  I'm just sayin'.

'Snake Eyes' for Financial Media Snake-Oilmen

You gotta hand it to Jon Stewart - one week on after his bravura dressing-down of CNBC's 'Mad Money' analyst Jim Cramer, and the Internet is still buzzing about the need for old-school investigative journalism from our financial news organisations, lest they start looking obsolete. That a stand-up comic came to the rescue of the vocational descendants of Edward R Murrow is itself an indictment on the state of American journalism, to be sure. But hey, let's not sweat the small stuff. The big stuff is that the credibility of financial news organisations is being talked about in the Great Wide Open of the Internet and beyond, as it needs to be given the severe crisis we're finding ourselves in, and our need for crystal clear information from our financial news shows.  Given the rapid advance of social media as an arena which can easily provide counterpoints to the clown shows in financial media, is it any wonder most of us are Twittering ourselves senseless to get real answers?

In (no) Financial Media Can We Trust?

As I watched Cramer give excellent squirm under Stewart's attacks ("Roll 210!"), I felt myself becoming enraged minute-to-minute, and it occurred to me only afterwards that part of my anger was in a question: does this mean that we now have to construct our own news because we can't trust journalists to do their jobs? Cramer actually spoke of CEOs lying to his face about the health of their companies, and Stewart was too right in calling him out as not having done his journalistic diligence on investigating whether the claims had merit. Surely the whole point of having financial experts coming to journalism is for the news to benefit from key expertise - so you can forgive them if they themselves aren't experienced in vetting stories as a trained reported would, but then that what junior reporter runts/researchers are there for.  

So imagine my surprise when prepping this post I saw Cramer started his academic career as a journalist!  Say what??? I was fully prepared to cut him some of the 'fin-expert' slack until that came across my desk.  I actually felt some serious dread; if someone of his calibre and expertise in both worlds - finance and journalism -  can't be trusted to produce a show with integrity and a keen eye for spotting the bugaboos which may trip up the layperson, then I don't get the point of the show's existence.  (And remember, if you're a cable subscriber, you're actually paying for this nonsense!)

So how much of this is CNBC's fault?  Can they actually be trusted to produce a financial news program that is more about news than it is about 'infotainment'?  What does it say about the state of such programs that the best explanation of the current credit crisis is not some clip from a financial news show, but a video which started making the rounds last month from some expert individual who took it upon himself to explain the thing?  As Stewart confronted Cramer with footage of him in 2006 advocating the practice of short-selling and rumour-mongering towards enhancing the position, I couldn't help thinking of CNBC's lack of investigative rigour and further wondered, is it because they can't?  Is it because they're constrained in some way?

Where's Lowell Bergman When You Need Him?

The next morning as I was surfing for feedback on Stewart's show, I kept replaying Stewart highlighting the need for a financial news organisation whose role is to provide dispassionate news in the face of lying CEOs.  Then, I remembered Michael Mann's superb account of how corporate entanglements can prevent information being given to the public in his 1999 movie, 'The Insider' (Al Pacino, Russell Crowe).  In it, we're shown the story of tobacco scientist and whistleblower, Dr Jeffery Wigand, and his coming forth on Big Tobacco's efforts to boost nicotine addiction in cigarettes while claiming that they did not believe that such addiction existed, and how CBS News' '60 Minutes' had difficulties airing his story due to pressures from CBS Corporate, as the fallout from such a segment would potentially ruin a sale of CBS to Westinghouse back in 1995.  "Is CBS Corporate telling CBS News, 'do not air this story'?" was the line from Al Pacino's Lowell Bergman that made me think, hey - can a big corporation like CNBC be trusted to even provide clean information if their corporate links to other companies prohibit such forthrightness?

That's what so great about social media - informational access without borders, confidentiality agreements, and byzantine relationships between corporate entities whose interests in the truth may vastly differ from ours.  If more and more Cramers come onto the scene, with more and more corporate news behemoths not holding their feet to the fire with respect to journalistic integrity, then I too am with Stewart when he said, "I want the Cramer of Mad Money to protect me from the Cramer of that (hedge fund) video".  So do we all, Jon, so do we all.  Could social media be the answer here?  Let's discuss!