NEW YORK ( TheStreet) -- Some readers carry around a misnomer that people like me have a responsibility to be "objective."
I have been hearing that since I first got paid to do talk radio back in 1988.
: I'm not objective. Neither are you. For the most part, objectivity remains a myth. Claiming objectivity is akin to passing off the lie that you've never had an impure thought.
: I'm fair. I like to believe all humans strive to be fair to one another. In the financial media -- I know, this is a shock -- most people treat the individuals, companies and stocks they cover fairly.
It's easy to claim that a person is not "objective" or "fair" or is writing "negatively" to knock a stock down or "positively" to pump one up when you lack the first clue about the person.
I interact with a fair number of folks who cover the market daily -- writers from
and elsewhere. I know several well, some personally.
Double fist tap to the chest, man -- I've never worked or collaborated with a nicer crew. It shocks me that people covering Wall Street could be so cool.
I go a little
because I understand a considerable chunk of
audience might consume a headline that includes
I Hate Microsoft
and fire off an email to Jim Cramer demanding my termination on grounds that I'm not objective.
I don't like to use the word hate. When I do I prefer to direct it at a thing or concept. In that respect, I have come to hate
(MSFT - Get Report)
Not the people at the company, but the idea of Microsoft, the entity. Think about how you "hate" a sports team.
Sure, I think Ballmer is nuts, but keep it in context; I'm not saying he belongs in a mental institution. I don't wish anything bad on the guy.
I spend my days and nights reading articles about companies and stock.
Nothing I see surprises me. Very little offends me. I can tolerate quite a bit. But, man, I just can't get past the cats who rip an author in the comments section of an article or
for "hating" or not being "objective" on a company or stock, particularly when it's a dog such as Microsoft.