I am with what anecdotally seems to be the majority of people, who thought the Daily Show interview of Jim Cramer conducted by Jon Stewart was brilliant, even while painful to watch.
Jim Cramer had the misfortune of representing all of CNBC, indeed all of the financial news networks (which is what now, 3?). On the other hand, Cramer sort of brought this upon himself, with the over-the-top advertising for him that CNBC provided (e.g. the much harped-upon “In Cramer We Trust”), and the media blitz that Cramer himself engaged upon after the initial salvos were fired that, while featuring him, didn’t focus solely on him.
Stewart’s message though, similar to the withering one he delivered to the (2nd generation of) CNN’s Crossfire, is that these media institutions are woefully mis-serving their audiences. Most of what the financial networks provide is not news- it is commentary. What news they do deliver is already known amongst most traders and professionals, and so useless for any short-term financial decisions, on which the networks unfortunately prey.
In the Huffington Post article Larry Summers’ True Record on Women, Sheryl Sandberg writes an otherwise glowing review of Lawrence Summers’ (former short-term Treasury Secretary and ex-Harvard president) record on women. There was one bit I had to take issue with, however:
To conclude that he communicated poorly — and even insensitively — is fair.
Summers raised some points of consideration with regard to why women and men choose certain careers disproportionately. He offered his opinions and personal insights in good faith, and suggested further study.
This inflamed the insecurities of certain people who hold fast to an ideological belief that, when it comes to education and careers, men and women must by necessity start out perfectly equal, and so any imbalance must be caused by social factors. That’s a fine theory to hold, but only if you can support it with evidence instead of ideology. Summers’ detractors on this point are afraid of any competing theories, perhaps because they know their own is on such shaky ground.
The fact is, if you really want to increase the representation of women in fields like math and science (or, conversely, the representation of men in the humanities), you need a firm and grounded understanding of what motivates them to enter certain fields. Social factors no doubt play a role, but if that’s all you focus on, I believe you’ll be sorely disappointed with your results.
Rather than being strung up, Summers should have been lauded for his willingness to enter into the conversation honestly and express points that most in academia seem too cowed to.
