Enlarge AP Mad Money host Jim Cramer, left, set himself up for a confrontation on Jon Stewart's show after appearing on other shows, including Today and Martha Stewart. WHAT'S ON TV THIS MONTH? WHAT'S ON TV THIS MONTH? You'd think people on TV would have a better idea of how it works. Yet clearly they don't, to judge from the insane TV parade staged by CNBC Mad Money host Jim Cramer. In his search for justice, attention or both, Cramer inserted himself into a comedy battle between Jon Stewart and CNBC's Rick Santelli, turning what had been a one-day story into week-long, front-page news — and diminishing his reputation and that of his network in the process. Let's just say if Cramer were a stock, the best advice today would be "sell." For those few who may have missed it, the feud began when Stewart's Comedy Central series, The Daily Show, answered Santelli's rant against the bad judgment shown by homeowners with a video reel mocking CNBC's own bad judgment in covering the economic meltdown. Cramer complained that the reel took some of his comments out of context, which led Stewart to do an even funnier, nastier clip reel aimed solely at him. At this point, a wise media investor would have simply walked with his losses. As Stewart himself said Tuesday: "I said my piece, somehow he thought my piece was about him, he said his piece, and so then I made it about him. And we move on." But no. Instead Cramer went on a media tour, starting at the Today show, moving on to MSNBC's Morning Joe and then The Martha Stewart Show and ending, in flames, on The Daily Show itself on Thursday. It's hard to say which was the worst or oddest performance: trading bluster with Joe's Joe Scarborough, seeking comfort from Martha, or the almost embarrassingly contrite groveling he did on The Daily Show by admitting he made mistakes and pledging to do better. Well, despite what you may have heard from the lazily cynical, all publicity is not good publicity — particularly not when respect is your stock in trade. No one expects Cramer to be an expert in media relations, but when you appear this publicly clueless in one area, it makes people wonder how far that cluelessness extends. What should Cramer have done? Here are three rules to consider: 1. Choose your friends wisely. You can understand why Cramer would appear on a well-regarded corporate cousin like Today, but that should have been the start and end of the tour. Scarborough merely added oil to the fire, using Cramer as an excuse to attack Stewart and cutting his guest off when he tried to cool the rhetoric. As for cooking with Martha Stewart, not only did that make Cramer look desperate, it risked making him look guilty by association. Fairly or not, Stewart's conviction for obstruction of justice has left her as something less than a go-to role model for Wall Street redemption. And now, Cramer is being defended by Tucker Carlson, who was badly burned in his own public battle with Stewart over CNN's thankfully canceled Crossfire. Really, with friends like that ... 2. Know your enemy. When Cramer dismissed Jon Stewart as a "comedian" running "a variety show" on Today, you could practically hear the death knell ringing. Stewart may be a comic, but he's an incredibly smart and increasingly influential one — a media darling whose comments get amplified by print, TV and the Internet. Stewart also can be unrelenting, something Cramer must have missed when he agreed go on his show. The Daily Show is not Saturday Night Live, where merely showing up wins you a kid-glove-treatment pass, and Stewart is not the kind of host who strikes whatever pose the audience and guests prefer that night. He has strongly held positions and a forum that allows him to express them with blistering precision — as he did Thursday, to the dismay of a seemingly shell-shocked Cramer. To go into that forum unprepared, as Cramer appeared to do, is suicidal. 3. Know when to shut up. It's hard enough to defend yourself against a comedy assault when you're right. When you're wrong, it's impossible. Yes, Stewart "cherry-picked" quotes to make Cramer look as bad as possible — that's what he does, as he readily admits. And it's almost certain that Stewart overstated the impact of Cramer's mistakes and CNBC's coverage on the stock market crash. Yet in the end, as Cramer himself said, mistakes were made. His main line of defense was that others made mistakes as well. Though that's no doubt true, it's hardly a line you want to fight over, particularly when, considering the different audiences the networks serve, chances are most CNBC viewers would never have heard Stewart's devastating take-down of the network had Cramer not kept the story growing and spreading. By picking a fight he could not win, Cramer gave Stewart time and ammunition to launch a broader, more damaging attack on CNBC itself. The thrust, as he laid it out Thursday, is that the network gave up its role as watchdog and began to treat the market as a game and CEOs as star quarterbacks, forgetting what was at stake should the market fail. At a time when the market and the media are held in equally low regard, that's an argument that can easily take hold. And yet that could also be the one upside. If this affair makes the media reconsider their coverage and the rest of us consider how easily distracted we are by, say, stories about feuds between TV personalities, Cramer may have unintentionally done us all a service. Funny how that works. Guidelines: You share in the USA TODAY community, so please keep your comments smart and civil. Don't attack other readers personally, and keep your language decent. Use the "Report Abuse" button to make a difference. You share in the USA TODAY community, so please keep your comments smart and civil. Don't attack other readers personally, and keep your language decent. Use the "Report Abuse" button to make a difference. Read more