The report found little agreement on the title question: What is financial journalism for?
In summary, there is some general agreement on a basic tier of responsibilities that most financial and business journalists agree to: to respect the codes of conduct and the law, and to respect any particular guidelines that apply to the particular outlet in which they work. But the more positive responsibilities are much more disputed. Some reject the notion of any profession-wide template of responsible behaviour entirely, arguing that each media company, in providing news services, simply serves customers and responds to their demands. Others have a more developed notion of the role of financial journalism in the system of corporate governance: according financial and business journalism a ‘fourth estate’ role in relation to corporate power: holding both businesses and public authorities to account and investigating malpractice.
Or as the paper puts it elsewhere:
If journalists see themselves mainly or merely as serving the market or investors, they may be less effective in their watchdog role.
I agree. I would go further and argue that journalists who (consciously or not) see their role as serving investors first, or primarily, risk failing readers as both as citizens and investors. The current crisis illustrates perfectly that insistent, drumbeat, muckraking reporting (“holding both business and public authorities to account and investigating malpractice,” as the paper says) about systemic abuses in the lending industry, for one, would have provided the vital, longer-term warnings that investors clearly lacked. We’ve discussed this form of press myopia in relation to differing approaches by the mainstream media and the alternative press to coverage of Citigroup.
In any case, it is valuable that Polis has taken on the task of discussing such fundamental questions systematically and in the abstract, above the fray of daily journalism and the blogs, where such matters can be, shall we say, personalized, and finger-pointing is, um, not uncommon.
The paper deals with other challenges to effective reporting, some touched on elsewhere, including the problems to journalism posed by financial complexity, the speeding up of the news cycle, and, interestingly, globalization.
And I haven’t seen much discussion about the rising clout of public-relations pros in the dissemination of business news.
One Business Editor with a long experience in the UK saw the rise of financial PR as the single most important change to have taken place in recent years:
“In the last ten, twenty years I suppose the biggest change has been the rise of the financial intermediary, financial public relations services. They are putting up barriers to information. I think they were always around but they’ve developed and become much more sophisticated. When I first came across them they were really kind of press cutting services. But now they are really strategy advisors. And there are some company directors that do not talk or answer phone calls without consulting them. And they have enormous power. In many ways, they set the agenda. They are the access point. They are making these people available for interviews or they don’t make them available for interviews. They release information in a, what’s the word, in a way which is carefully orchestrated to happen. […] Things are very controlled in a way compared with the way it used to be.
And here’s an interesting fact: Financial PR revenue in Britain increased nearly seven-fold from the ’80s to the ’90s:
Financial PR has been a high margin, rapid growth industry in recent decades. In 1986, British companies spent £37m on financial PR. A decade later the annual figure had risen to £250m. (Michie, 1998: 26). The evidence is that the past decade has seen similar or perhaps larger rates of growth. Industry sources estimate that financial PR consultancies can command fees up to 1 percent of the bid values in M+A deals (Miller, et al. 2000).
Wow. What do you think it did in the U.S. in, say, the last ten years? It’s a big number, I’m sure.
In the end, I like the Tambini paper because it does business journalism the honor of taking it seriously. That’s both good and bad news for the field, since that particular honor also brings scrutiny.

Back in the mid-90s I toured the Bloomberg operation, with Bloomberg himself as tour guide, as part of an IRE group. Big room, each station had, like, two flat-panel monitors back when nobody had those. There were a hundred reporters in there at least, and Bloomberg told us how they got all the info in real time as a service to subscribers. I looked at all that power and money and talent deployed there and asked, "So, how often do you guys go deep on something, really did under the 10-k and tell what the real deal is?" I knew before I'd finished asking that the question was a tad naive. The response was stunning: about 5, 6 seconds of silence, during which time they looked at me as if I had three heads. Bloomberg's press aid guy (or maybe he was an editor) stammered some boilerplate about "sometimes" doing real j work, but the overall effect was one of impertinence and humiliation--mine--as if I'd asked the King to explain his obesity. This was one of many, many moments in my career in which I felt that way for that reason. I've come to think of that feeling and its manufacture as the chief product of journalism, as recently and presently practiced.
#1 Posted by edward ericson, CJR on Tue 13 Jan 2009 at 11:14 PM
This is apropos your good piece, Dean:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/01/14/nattering_nitwits/index.php
Nattering Nitwits
By Todd Gitlin - January 14, 2009, 10:10AM
Harold Meyerson has a nice column in today's WP underscoring the deeply bizarro nature of an economy that, you've noticed, collapsed under the benign gaze of George "It's your money not the government's money" Bush.
By 2007, when Wall Street's profits amounted to an astonishing 40 percent of all American profits, the business of American finance was no longer American business -- providing loans for domestic production, technological innovation, that sort of thing -- but swapping bets and hedges on bets and hedges, all for hefty commissions.
Save for devising more ways for Americans to go into debt, Wall Street had basically decoupled itself from the economy in which Americans live and work.
And what were America's "financial news" channels doing all that while? I ran into a CNN Money manager at a journalists' do last night, and asked him whether he'd reconsidered any of the networks' reporting, in particular their choice of sources, in the light of recent bubble bursts. The short answer: No. Everything's jus' fine.
Back to Meyerson:
While the nattering nitwits of CNBC hailed the stock market increases of the first seven years of George W. Bush's presidency as evidence that the U.S. economy had never done better, every other economic index made clear that the economy was in dismal shape. As Neil Irwin and Dan Eggen documented in Monday's Post, the rate of job creation and GDP growth during Bush's tenure is the lowest of any president of the post-World War II period. Somehow, our financial geniuses managed to miss this and built a vast financial edifice on the backs of consumers who eventually could consume no more.
I hate to beat up on journalism at such a bleak time in its history, but it's salutary to remember the recent past before rushing out to repeat it.
#2 Posted by Todd Gitlin, CJR on Wed 14 Jan 2009 at 10:45 AM
Dean,
Thanks for your help on the report and for this superb analysis/review.
As Director of Polis, responsible for publishing Dr Tambini's report, I am delighted it is getting some US coverage.
I think you are being a bit hard on the quality of US reflection on financial media. In the UK it has also boiled down to people either blaming the BBC's Robert Peston for blogging or claiming that they alone have been warning about the Coming Crisis for years.
We're continuing with this stream of work - Dr Tambini has just returned from Hong Kong and we hope to get support to come to New York.
We will be debating it at a public event at the LSE on February 23rd.
If anyone is interested please have a look at our website at www.polismedia.org - we would welcome input from your side of the Pond!
regards
Charlie Beckett
Director, Polis at LSE
www.charliebeckett.org
#3 Posted by Charlie Beckett, CJR on Wed 14 Jan 2009 at 02:31 PM
Here's a snippet of what I, business columnist for OC Register, wrote on this debate recently ...
You know, we're not perfect. Not by a long shot. And I know we could've been bolder. And we could have put coverage of the brewing mess into plainer English, so perhaps you would have better understood the risks that were being taken.
But how can folks – from citizenry to academics to congressional offices – say they were blind-sided by the housing-fed economic disaster when for years various real estate types and their supporters have been complaining about a deep, negative slant to media coverage of the much-debated "housing bubble?"
The rest of my defense of my craft is at http://twurl.nl/hergkv
#4 Posted by Jon Lansner, CJR on Wed 14 Jan 2009 at 06:44 PM