Pot, meet Kettle.

I suppose the smoke has cleared over the Jon Stewart/Jim Cramer shouting match. I didn't see it and I didn't want to. As far as I was concerned, it was television screaming at itself. I don't have an official poll, but I'd guess that more people like Jon Stewart than Jim Cramer. Mostly because Stewart makes them laugh and most people don't know what Jim Cramer is talking about, and we always like people who make us laugh over people who confuse us. They're both smarter than us, and if it wasn't for the laughing part, we wouldn't like Jon Stewart very much either.

Stewart was pissed over the way Jim Cramer turns investing into entertainment. That's the basis of the argument as I see it. Everything else is filler for the TV show. The point that Stewart missed is that he has made a nice living mocking people whom we're supposed to respect - like world leaders and people of authority - in a network news format. Sure, he mocks celebrities and other non-worthy adversaries, but we do that all the time. We're talking about the seriousness of investing money versus the seriousness of news.

Meanwhile, consider this:

A 2004 study into the effect of "The Daily Show" on viewers' attitudes found that participants had a more negative opinion of both President Bush and then Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry after watching Stewart's show. Participants also expressed more cynical views of the electoral system and news media.

A 2006 study published by Indiana University tried to compare the substantive amount of information of "The Daily Show" against prime time network news broadcasts, and concluded that when it comes to substance, there is little difference between "The Daily Show" and other news outlets. The study contended that, since both programs are more focused on the nature of "infotainment" and ratings than on the dissemination of information, both are broadly equal in terms of the amount of substantial news coverage they offer.

Hmm ... influencing opinion and covering the news. That sounds pretty serious and even broadly equal. Maybe Cramer should be yelling back? Or maybe he should be doing a fake investing show like Stewart's so-called fake news show?

If Stewart wants to start screaming at people he could probably start with his own producers and the producers of other television shows that make entertainment out of dating, marriage, drug and alcohol addiction and self-improvement. Fat people trying to be thin is great theater until you realize that their condition could kill them and we're all along for the ride.

People go on talk shows every day flaunting some physical malady or addiction in front of people like Doctor Phil and Oprah, and for the sheer entertainment of it, we tune in. Mostly, we tune in because we like to think, "Jesus, they're fucked up." We're in the business of self-aggrandizement. We turn other people's misery into our entertainment. How is that so much different than what Jim Cramer does?

"American Idol" viewers readily admit to enjoying the first few programs because that's when the really bad singers are on display. They enjoy laughing at their ineptitude. "The Biggest Loser" brings in a nice audience of people who like to watch fat people suffer to be thin. There's a show on A & E called "Intervention" where a family brings a destitute member to a counselor to get them to change their ways, but not before we are presented with 45 minutes of a display of their addiction. It's supposed to be entertainment.

Almost half of what passes for entertainment on television involves someone making a fool of themselves, doing something crazy or putting themselves on display in one form or another.

What Jim Cramer does is no different than fifty television shows you could name. He makes something that isn't normally entertaining worth watching. The fact that he's wrong about some of his ideas makes him ... human, just like the bad singers and fat people.

They're all in it to make a buck, and Jon Stewart isn't any better than the rest of them.