It used to be that the prime criticism of financial journalists was that way too many of them spent way too much time kissing the butts of rich people in return for facetime or airtime with those self-same rich folks. Technically they were practicing "access journalism," a craft in which a reporter's (or producer's) career path was dictated by his or her ability to get access - on camera and at parties - to The Right Names. That required the reporters to be uncritical and unreflective since questions like "so, what insight have you actually provided beyond that one right market call in 1987?" puts you on the road to extinction.
Now, news outlets seem increasingly skeptical of the need for even minimal independence, training or qualification. My News Literacy class was talking about the implication of the banner on Marketwatch.com's Trading Desk page: "Insights from market professionals, not staff journalists." They suspect the translation was "insights from people with massive, undisclosed conflicts-of-interest, not somewhat-independent observers."
I had a similar reaction to a story this morning on the Forbes website:
Could The Market Crash? Here's What You Need To Know NOW! I shuddered. The attendant pearls of wisdom were shared by Rob Russell, who avers "I explore the investing world underbelly & challenge the status quo." (Ummm, "investing world
's underbelly," please.) What else might we learn about our lead explorer?
I love to challenge the status quo, expose the truth, and drive innovation in the investing world. I design forward-thinking investment strategies for high net worth families across the U.S. by using my trademarked process, I coach elite financial advisors and wealth managers on how to innovate and bring value to clients, and I'm a frequent TV guest on FOX Business and contributor to the Wall Street Journal.
Or, if you check his website, he "
often contributes to CNBC, Fox Business, The Wall Street Journal, US News and World Report." Hmmm. If you search Rob Russell's name on the websites of those four outlets, a slightly more limited picture appears. He made three brief appearances on CNBC in the summer of 2011, once or twice on Fox Business in 2010 and had one short piece in the WSJ that same year. It does appear that U.S. News reproduced his weekly blog posts in from 2012 and the first few months of 2013.
That appearance on Fox Business? In late December 2010, he suggested that investors move away from the US and into the emerging markets in 2011. In 2011, the US was up 2% and the emerging markets lost 19%. Apparently he was even more skeptical about the US market at the beginning of 2010, whereupon it rose 17%. He
did allow that investors might want to be invested in blue chips "to a certain degree." If you're 60, the most you should have "at risk" is 40%, he advised.
He seems like a nice guy whose "Christian beliefs" lead him to want to help people. He has a B.A. in business from Wright State but no professional credentials beyond that. The other guy in the firm is a CRPC, "Chartered Retirement Planning Counselor." If I'm reading his
Form ADV correctly, they're managing $28 million (which is either "a tiny puddle of money" or "$28 million more than anyone's entrusted to you, Dave").
Which is to say, there is no particular reason to pay the slightest attention to his market musings. So, why are they in Forbes? Uhh, (1) Forbes has no standards, which is funny for a site whose publisher once printed a list of the "top five financial pornographers." As a practical matter, his standard for "financial pornographers" were guys whose articles were pure, panic-inducing click-baits. (2) Mr. Russell seems to have hired someone to "elevate" his "expert status." From the blurry type at the bottom of a press release: "The Dicks and Nanton Branding Agency helps businesses brand themselves online by elevating their expert status through the use of television, radio and feature publications."
The problem is that it's not reasonable to expect that average reader of the average article to go through these gymnastics which, in theory, is the reason we used to have editors and the editors used to have professional standards.
Nuts.
David
Comments
My sister launched a news network, brother-in-law a field producer for a network news anchor. My nephew is a local TV news anchor.
There are NO standards for working in news. Many/most of the people I met did not have formal education in communications/broadcasting/news. So, it is no surprise that the non staff journalists you describe get on air.
The chances of a person in college who wants a job in TV news broadcasting either network or local are extremely small. The pay at the local level is pitiful for most on air reporters.
How to get a job in local or network or news? Be born into a family that has a high ranking job in the field. You will then get internships, access to jobs, inside information, training from your parents, and access to an agent.
Another way is to get a job tangential to the news division then work your way in.
Considering all the schools pumping out degrees in Communication/Broadcasting and the financial situation of the networks/stations the chance of getting a job in the field is nil.
If I were teaching a news communication course I would feel a bit guilty about taking the paycheck.
For what interest it holds, we mostly agree. There are some organizations whose reporters have, at least in working with me, been held to consistently high standards by their editors. But that's rare, and getting rarer. My colleagues have mostly been there (one left broadcast news over her news director's incessant desire to control her clothes and hair, rather than her stories; others alternated winning awards and being laid off) and have tried to design a program that does good despite the ongoing implosion.
We mostly teach journalism as a liberal art: we try to create readers who understand what exactly "the news" is and how it reached them, and we try to create writers who know how to gather and vet information, tell coherent and responsible stories and use communication technology. Most of the kids who start in traditional news operations leave after a couple years; a lot go on to work for non-profits where their ability to do what journalists should be allowed to do allows them to make a bit of money and do a bit of good.
David
David, do you sense a difference in how a college freshman approaches and/or deals with "media" and your related classes versus a freshman from about 10 years ago?
I ask this in reference more directly towards "their world(s) and viewpoints" which I am sure is reworked and reshuffled with and from "social media". In particular with social media areas as Facebook and Twitter.
In particular towards Twitter posts that are open for public reading, I find most of the young folks are quite free with their comments about what is going on in their lives and around them; including linking other Twitter posts that catch their fancy. I will say that I'm surprised more often than not; about the serious and deep thinking that takes place with some of the text conversations.
Just being naturally curious. Thank you.
Catch
I have proof - been there, seen it and got the tee shirt.
I am a
reporter
journalist
video journalist
photo journalist
news analyst
I am all those things and more because they do not take any qualification or even continuing education. That I do not have any education in the subject I am reporting on is not a factor.
There is no great brain trust behind getting the news.
A reporter/editor is really a great job if you can keep it - no requirements required!
How much could I get paid for teaching that class?
About 90% of our media use is for social purposes: we want to appear to be "in the know," hence respected, and we want to be able to talk about the stuff that other people in our lives are talking about. Neither requires profound understanding and neither requires that the stuff we watch is "serious news." Scholars refer to this stuff as "soft news" (think "Jon Stewart covers the Republican National Convention") and they argue that it's actually pretty functional. You could learn enough from watching Oprah, for example, to have a decent clue about the world. We only develop depth on subjects that our peers will discuss at depth (uhhh ... whether the Bear's secondary really need to use the nickel as their base package rather than relying on a cover-2 on first and second down).
And that's always been true for most folks; their engagement with "serious issues" was rare, reactionary and disastrously ill-informed.
For my students, increasingly the "water cooler conversations" take place through social media and rely on it. Twitter and Facebook feeds are news sources for them. 100 texts or posts a day is simply not unusual and they tend to "sip" news throughout the day. The hassle is that no two of them use the same feeds or browse the same sites, which makes it a lot harder for them to sustain a discussion. They're as thoughtful and smart as any generation I've taught, just a lot more scattered because "scattered" (they call it "multi-tasking") is what's expected and what their technology affords.
Does that say anything? I can't tell.
Scattered Snowball