The case against Jim Cramer

You might recall CNBC "Mad Money" host Jim Cramer being the subject of a tough piece in Barron's last summer on how his stock picks were often less than reliable. An analysis by senior editor Bill Alpert found that the market sometimes bested Cramer. Thing is, the conclusions were not clear cut. While Cramer fared poorly in his list of 1,200 stock picks, he did much better with a smaller list of 445 issues that CNBC claims were fully-researched. I remember the Barron’s piece having an edgy tone that wasn't completely matched with the facts at hand. Anyway, CJR's Dean Starkman took a close look at the article and CNBC's reaction to it, finding some fault with both organizations, but generally siding with Barron's. He says that CNBC was playing fast and loose with Cramer's lists of picks - one of them supposedly being researched and the others not. How are viewers supposed to sort out stocks he really likes with those he just sort of likes?

It borders on flimflammery for CNBC to put forward a list of sanctioned picks that eliminates 90 percent of the stocks Cramer talks about, including and especially mentions that are accompanied by cows and a “moo,” which occurs frequently in the lightning round. And while viewers obviously know that words like “lightning round” and “sudden death” do not mean “meticulously researched,” in fact they do trade on those supposed non-picks, hence the next-day stock gyrations on all manner of Cramer mentions.

Starkman did have some issues with Barron's.

Barron’s seems overly dismissive of CNBC’s (minor) victory using its database of 445 stocks. Yes, it is a highly selective collection based on unclear criteria of a fraction of Cramer’s total mentions. Still, given all that, he beat the market by 1.2 percent over two months, or, extrapolated over a year, 7.2 percent, which is good by any standard. Barron’s should have done more to deconstruct this list if it felt it was deliberately cobbled together to help Cramer win.

All right, so you have a reporter writing a piece that the subject is not all that happy about. Happens all the time and life goes on, right? But the folks at CNBC are not going on. The business cable network unofficially banned Barron's reporters from being on-air guests. CNBC officials say they didn't actually banish Barron's but were left to question the magazine's integrity. (Now that's chutzpah, considering how CNBC's own integrity has been challenged for far more serious issues, such as the appropriateness of Maria Bartiromo’s relationships with the business people she supposedly covers.) Of course, the channel is only protecting Cramer, one of its valuable stars.

The clash shows what happens when one business-news outlet goes after another: bad blood. In a recent interview with me, a visibly distraught Cramer displayed an emotional intensity entirely different from his ranting but comical on-air persona. “It was just so outrageous, so Kafkaesque,” he says of being a Barron’s target.