Some journalists give journalism a bad name
I don't know how many times I've read a post or an article by some small-minded, self-important journalist advising a public company's board of directors on how to "fix" the company. The most common advice is "sell the company," "fire the CEO," or better still, "fire all the executives."
Even if a company is screwing up, how is a journalist--whose entire management experience consists of looking at his watch to be sure he files a story by 3 p.m.--qualified to dole out management advice? Is mastery of a keyboard sufficient experience to know how to run a company?
Do these poor excuses for reporters have any idea how a company works? For example, does it really benefit shareholders to sell a troubled company when its stock is at its lowest and has no bargaining power? Did the reporter take a few months to analyze the company's situation and determine that an acquisition makes sense or is even plausible?
Sure, lots of executives are incompetent or dysfunctional. But is a journalist qualified to make that determination? In what universe does it make sense for somebody who writes about a company once or twice a year to make a critical determination that a CEO with 30 years' experience should be fired?
Maybe the most ludicrous advice is "fire all the executives." Is the board supposed to simply walk into an executive staff meeting and tell everyone they're fired? How exactly do you do that without either ending up indicted for breach of fiduciary responsibility or at the wrong end of a massive shareholder lawsuit since the action will surely harm the company?
Every time I read this kind of narcissistic journalism it makes me cringe like nails on a chalkboard. It's like Britney Spears giving advice on parenting, or O.J. Simpson teaching anger management. It's like Bernie Ebbers, Dennis Kozlowski, and Jeff Skilling teaching a class on business ethics.
On the other hand, I'm aware that this cuts both ways. I'm an ex-industry executive writing a blog. What qualifies me to be a writer? I didn't study journalism or literature. Journalists probably laugh at my crude grammar and composition, scoff at the way I structure my posts.
Well, the difference is that I don't presume to tell anyone how to write.
Last word:
I'm not saying that journalists shouldn't have an opinion. On the contrary, bloggers, columnists, pundits, have at it. But advising a corporation with thousands of employees, shareholders, and customers that it should sell the company or fire executives when you have no experience with that sort of thing simply lacks credibility. It also makes you sound like a complete idiot.
Steve Tobak is managing partner of Invisor Consulting LLC. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network, and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure. 
AM..N
"The Network is the computer"
Wall Street analysts.
Journalists are qualified to write about only one thing: journalism.
Jack
Most people understand journalistic puffery, and only an idiot would think that anyone should be expected to take such "fire-them-all" opinions seriously; apparently, the difference is you expect us to take you seriously, whereas most of the journalists you denigrate REALIZE they are just offering opinions, not serious business advice.
As Bob Dylan put it "You don't need a weather man to know which way the wind blows".
You don't need to be a management expert to know that a company's leadership is failing. Results speak for themselves.
That said, many journalists, bloggers, and pundits have zero credibility. The latter two categories often say stupid, inflamatory, things, just to get attention.
Was John Peter Zenger more like the professional journalist of today, or the blogger?
The essential job of most professional journalists is to flack for professional politicians (who they call "sources). When was the last time you read of a political scandal uncovered from the outset by journalists, rather than having them trail reluctantly behind law enforcement or another agency that discovered the malfeasance?
The line between true objective journalism and editorial opinion has blurred beyond the point of even recognizing the distinction in some cases. All that means is that the reader, like always, has to think for themselves. The good news is that in many cases the journalist might do some good by at least bringing the issue into the open for debate. Their solutions may not be in the ball park, but since when is a journalist reason for existence to solve the problems? There role is merely to report the news or their views (and clearly distinguish between the two).
My real concern would be if such an article appeared within a regular news area or section and was not properly labeled as an opinion piece. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but a good journalist knows that news stories must be factual and completely objective. That is why we have editorial sections - to express personal thoughts.
But to your main point: sometimes people who are not authors or speakers write surprisingly well or are surprisingly eloquent.
So should we be so surprised if columnists now and again state their opinion that a CEO should go _ and should we be so surprised if they are wrong or right in that assessment?
As a journalist I saw many CEOs and even more CFOs in jobs that _ in my opinion _ they weren't qualified (by expierence or talent) to hold. I kept my opinion to myself and documented their actions and watched. Often they failed, and sometimes they succeeded by dumb luck. And sometimes they succeeded because I was wrong in my opinions, and the executives unveiled hidden depths.
The world is a complicated place, and even knuckleheads who shoot off about "firing the whole board" have a role to play.
Good luck with your column...
Yes, not all bloggers are qualified to discuss business matters, however some may be shareholders and might just want the company sold to gain something, shares in another company, rather than nothing at all.
When a company has a market, a product and a dwindling consumer base, the question has to arise why? If the company is languishing from tired thinking, then perhaps replacing much of the board would make sense or be more of an interest to shareholders than letting their invests fail without a chance for success.
Another problem I have with your blog is that you assume that certain jounralists or bloggers, have little to no understanding of business. Considering the great number of graduates in business, not to mention the anonimity of age that blogging gives you, how is it that you can assume that the blogger knows nothing about the business? I myself have predicted various ways the company I'm working for will go after a particular company (read board of directors) decision. Ironically it is by not listening to the staff, their opinions (often mirrored by journalists) and their worries. Here's an interesting fact, if people don't agree with a story, they generally don't carry on reading it, bar from contradicting it.
Perhaps CEOs and executives, instead of poo-pooing the rank and file writers following a company's fortunes, or lack of, should pay attention to how their workers and lower management view their efforts.
- by nichomach December 21, 2007 2:12 AM PST
- Mr. Tobak, I might be more inclined to take your pious little opinion piece a little more seriously if you understood that to "delve" is to dig or excavate, or to extensively research. If you mean "give out" or "dole out", say so.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(19 Comments)