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. Breaking News: 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. Developing Story: 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 TheStreet 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 inside baseball because I understand a considerable chunk of TheStreet's 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 Microsoft ( MSFT). 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 on Twitter for "hating" or not being "objective" on a company or stock, particularly when it's a dog such as Microsoft.
Granted, Microsoft isn't in nearly as bad shape as Research in Motion ( RIMM) (yet), but some of the same principles apply. I'm talking about principles of investing, not similarities between the two companies, even though there are many. RIMM bulls who trashed the bears misdirected their anger. It's the same thing MSFT (and Intel ( INTC)) bulls do today. They attacked admittedly outspoken messengers such as myself for playing things as they lay. Think about the illogic. RIM, for instance, not only butchered 2011, it waited until the last possible minute to lower full year guidance. The company pressed on with an overly optimistic outlook until it could no longer keep up the jig. There's no question in my mind that the way RIM executives communicated on conference calls and such during the early-to-middle stages of RIM's implosion kept more than a few people in the stock. Holding RIMM for just a little bit longer did not end well. Instead of demanding answers from management, RIM bulls displayed unflinching loyalty, branding the bears not only as bad guys, but crooked evildoers. If you're a MSFT shareholder or just a PC diehard, don't make the same mistake. Guys like me did not create Microsoft's problems. We're not responsible for the worse-than-stagnant stock over the past five years, which, mind you, has been a transformative time across the tech space. We didn't fall asleep at the wheel; Steve Ballmer did. Send him your scorn, not your loyalty. Doing the opposite is nothing but a recipe for losing more money than you already have on a dead stock. Follow @rocco_thestreet