Not to introduce any cognitive dissonance (including with my earlier post), but decades ago Jim Cramer was actually a successful hedge fund manager. He had a record of beating the S&P 500, and left right before the dot-com crash - keeping his record intact. I sort of wonder what that means, compared to his really poor advice as a TV host. But maybe it's as simple as catering to a new audience.
I always thought his job as a TV show was primarily entertainment and maximizing viewership, whereas his career as a fund manager was about maximizing shareholder profits. His "lightning round" of stock picks is the exact opposite of in-depth analysis (gut reaction to news rather than changes to fundamentals).
also worth noting (as someone did above) that he often moved contrary to his own recommendations, possibly intentionally benefiting from these moves.
This is no different than what analysts, hedge funds, etc. do. Sure, they don't have their own show, but they don't need it. They have a communication channel via reports, price changes, etc., they have an understanding of technical analysis, and they have access to large amounts of money, all of which allows them to manipulate the market. They have no idea what people are doing on the other side of their trade, so it obviously doesn't always work in their favor, but they use these avenues (and others) to manipulate the market. Since the beginning of the market people have been using all manner of tactics to get easy money. Cramer is no different.
Admittedly I've never watched Cramer, but I do enjoy the Cramer jab in "The Big Short". I can't help but feel that he was probably flattered.