So, I write a post about the motives of folks I see defending Mr. Cramer from a Barron's article and somehow it gets twisted into an attack on James Altucher.
First things first. I have no ax to grind with Altucher. I love it when he links ValuePlays, it drives traffic to the blog.
Now that is done, let's get to the real point of the original post. The defenses of Cramer ranged from a flacid conspiracy theory involving Rupert Murdoch (the only thing missing from this idea was the Karl Rove or Dick Cheney link) to the show is really educational or the show is really just trying to get people to think a certain way. The conspiracy theory was so bad the writers of it should be ashamed and issue us a public apology.
Who is right? None of them probably. Like I said in the first post the show is so ambiguous that it cannot be specifically categorized. It is a little of this and a little of that and a whole lot of shtick to get ratings. BUT, when you tell people what to do you have to accept people tracking those picks ESPECIALLY when you do not do it yourself. Cramer could easily end this mess buy tracking buys and sells on the show, since he does not, others will try to do it for him and one must live with their conclusions.
So, why then try to defend the show? I mean who really cares what Barron's thinks of the show, really. It is not like they trash a stock you own and feel differently about and their opinion has an effect on your holdings. Barron's opinion of the show has no effect on anyones holdings.
I guess if Cramer was a friend or an associate you would want to rush to his defense. I would expect people to do that and that would be an honorable thing to do. But, if you are doing that in a post, shouldn't you disclose that is the reason you are doing it? If you are going to try to defend a person against another due to a personal affiliation, it should be noted just as when we talk about stock we either own or do not own. If we know an association exists here and it is hidden, how then can we trust other disclosures you may or may not make?
My theory was that this was a rather transparent (in my eyes) "attempt" to endear oneself to the folks at TheStreet.com and get traffic directed to their website via the "Daily Blogwatch". This is not to say that it would be successful, but that the defenses were an attempt to do just that. This was the only reason I could come to that blogs that disclose stock affiliations did not disclose the personal ones that lead to the Cramer defenses.
Simple? Hell no!! It would seems Mr. Altucher took the post as an insult and asked me to "apologize" here on my blog. I am sorry if he took it as an attack on him and like I have told him, it was not meant that way and based on the emails I have received from readers, he may be the only one who took it that way. He insists that he would never publish posts based on the scenario listed above. Ok. I have no reason to doubt him and still do not think I inferred that in the original post. He did say in a comment to the post that "Bill Alpert will not be linked to anytime soon". So, I guess that means ass kissing will not work but the message is "do not write anything negative about Cramer or TheStreet.com"? I do not remember anything negative about James in the Barron's piece.
Hell if I know. I guess time will tell. My writings for ValuePlays, The Stockmasters and 24/7 Wall St. have appeared on BlogWatch, as Altucher himself said in his comment to my original post, "countless times" (he is correct about that). If they disappear, readers can take from that what they want and if they continue to appear, I invite James to give me something that I will post here in which he can "rub my nose in it" any way he wants.
If my history proves anything I will gladly post writings that oppose me and I have gone so far as to ask for them as was the case with my Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A) posts earlier in the summer.