Strange bedfellows: Jon Stewart and Patrick Byrne

By Felix Salmon
November 12, 2009
pulled out a secret weapon to unleash upon his unsuspecting guest?

" data-share-img="" data-share="twitter,facebook,linkedin,reddit,google" data-share-count="true">

Remember the Jon Stewart interview of Jim Cramer where Stewart pulled out a secret weapon to unleash upon his unsuspecting guest?

Stewart repeatedly said Cramer wasn’t his target, but aired clip after clip of the CNBC pundit.

“Roll 210!” announced Stewart, like a prosecutor. “Roll 212!”

Most were from a 2006 interview not meant for TV in which Cramer spoke openly about the duplicity of the market.

No one’s entirely sure where Stewart gets his video clips. But the source for these ones has now outed himself, and it’s none other than crazy short-selling conspiracy theorist Patrick Byrne.

“I supplied a certain video of Jim Cramer to a certain comedy show, that was used in revealing and exposing Jim Cramer,” said Byrne to the WSJ’s Julia Angwin in an interview.

Which is all well and good when it’s used to take down a blowhard like Cramer. But let’s hope that Stewart and his researchers are using Byrne only as a useful source of video. It wouldn’t be good if they were talking to him about the markets more generally.

(Via Weiss)

More From Felix Salmon
Post Felix
The Piketty pessimist
The most expensive lottery ticket in the world
The problems of HFT, Joe Stiglitz edition
Private equity math, Nuveen edition
Five explanations for Greece’s bond yield
Comments
13 comments so far

Felix, Byrne was lying, as he does about everything. Those videos were first broadcast by TheStreet.com and then mentioned in the NY Post back in 2007. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/cr amer_reveals_bit_too_much_KJjRJ8UuHAiW1d susV4FYI

Posted by Lou Johnson | Report as abusive

Those videos were all over the internet in the days leading up to that interview, including being prominently featured on Huffington Post.

Posted by DanR | Report as abusive

Felix, are you purposely trying to be ironic?You based your whole story off of this conspiracy theorist’s word. As a previous commenter stated already, those clips were widely circulated. It took no genius to find that video. Fortunately, Stewart didn’t use this guy as a source; unfortunately, you did!

Posted by Marcus | Report as abusive

The blog to which you linked was focused on Byrne lying, in point of fact.

Posted by Lou Johnson | Report as abusive

You couldn’t find that video anywhere on March 12, 2009 (the day it aired on Comedy Central) because CNBC had worked so hard to remove it from YouTube, and the other video sharing sites.If you’re not convinced, try to find a YouTube version of it that predates 3/12.Sure, many people knew about it from the NY Post story, but nobody had access to it.Fortunately, CNBC knew better than to ask me to remove the clip from my blog, where it’s been since shortly after it first appeared on TheStreet.com’s Cramer Confidential in late 2006, and where it remained even after TheStreet.com yanked it from their own servers.While working with the Daily Show on a piece related to short selling, Patrick Byrne told Stewart’s producers about the clip and where to find it.

That must have been the piece where the “money honey bee” poked fun at your employer.In the p.r. world, being made fun of is “working with them on a piece.”

Posted by Lou Johnson | Report as abusive

Patrick Byrne and Overstock.com are under parallel investigations by the SEC Enforcement Division and the Division of Corporation Finance for violations of GAAP and other SEC disclosure rules.Judd Bagley’s job is to stalk critics of Patrick Byrne.

To Judd Bagley:As the “Managing Partner at Deep Capture, LLC” did you approve Patrick Byrne’s response to me about participating in the Overstock.com Q3 2009 conference call on the Deep Capture web site, or was it a unilateral action by Patrick Byrne without your prior knowledge?What does the subject of my participation in Overstock.com’s q3 2009 conference call about the subject of GAAP and SEC disclosure violations by the company have to do with Deep Capture’s editorial policy?Do you approve Patrick Byrne calling his critics, who happen to be Jewish, gonifs?

You have a “conspiracies” tag. My work is almost done here. Go Patrick! (But if I find out you’re working with/for the bad guys, oy v’voy)

The chances of the Comedy Channel using an unauthorized copy of the Street.com video are somewhere around zero. They obviously cleared it with the copyright holders. Byrne is just full of it, as usual.

Posted by P. Jodkins | Report as abusive

“Via Weiss” says it all Felix. I see you have taken your amatuerism talents to Reuters now that Conde Nast has blown up.Tell me Felix, do you actually research anything for yourself or do you live to be the mouthpiece of such garbage as Weiss and Antar?

Posted by Boorish | Report as abusive

Decimal Place Trading caused the recession of 2008This recession was caused by the manipulation of stock prices on Wall Street through naked short-selling, flash trading, high-frequency trading, secret software, super-fast computers and what I feel was the main cause of this corruption: “Decimal Place Trading.” As I write this article today, much of this corruption is now slowly coming out through social media outlets such as Twitter and Facebook, along with bloggers on the internet, Yahoo bulletin boards, and the movie Stock Shock. The news media is also to blame for what has taken place in this country — including the near-collapse of Wall Street and the banking industry.There are many things to point fingers at or place the blame on, and I can think of a few off-hand that I would like to cover — the first being Wall Street’s regulation changes. I am no expert — I am not even a writer — but decided to tell this story since the business news media was not telling it. These Wall Street regulation changes contributed to the aforementioned problems in many ways, with the first being the removal of fractions in stock pricing. On January 29, 2001, the New York Stock Exchange, or NYSE, went to four-decimal-place trading. On March 12, 2001, the National Association of Securities Dealers Automated Quotation, or NASDAQ, followed suit. This new rule had the best of intentions as we headed toward the computer and digital world, but over time it was manipulated and companies like Goldman Sachs figured out how to take advantage of the new system. I am not sure how it happened, whether it was lobbied for years or what — but along came the biggest mistake of all with the elimination of the uptick rule in July of 2007. This rule had been implemented after the great depression, and had been in place since 1938. How could the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC, abolish a rule that had been in place for close to 70 years, and had worked? Put these two changes together, and you get a simple equation: greed plus corruption equals recession.Reports have been released on the web that Goldman Sachs made over 100 million dollars per day in 46 out of 64 trading days in Fiscal Year 2009, second quarter (April, May and June). Let me say that again. They made over 100 million dollars per day, and are still doing it as I write this letter today. But the question remains, how did they do it? There has been no report of this by any of the news media. How can this be? This corruption is 100 times the gravity of the Bernie Madoff story, and yet there has been no coverage by CNBC or Bloomberg News. Why? Goldman Sachs, upon Wall Street transitioning to fractions and the abolishment of the uptick rule, designed secret software and used this software to gain an advantage on every potential investor. Basically, Goldman Sachs became a Las Vegas poker dealer in New York City on Wall Street, turning profits on investors every trade with their super-fast computers and software.Richard Keane August 26th, 2009 Revised version

Interesting…James Chanos used to(?) work for Deutsche Bankhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_C hanosBut this isn’t a real Sith Lord is it? This is a billionaire scapegoat?

Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/