T A B L E__T A L K What's it worth to make a buck? Tell your horror stories and read those of others in Table Talk   Search for business, personal finance and more at barnesandnoble.com Search by:  Keyword Title Author     R E C E N T L Y Big apple pickpocket By Heather Chaplin Big apple pickpocket: For newcomers, New York City is a glittering, thieving con artist that we only notice after we get home and realize we're broke (03/05/99) Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome ... the Grateful Capitalists! By Larry Kanter Taking their cue from counterculture success stories like the Grateful Dead, radical marketers are building brand loyalty from the ground up (02/26/99) Epidemic of extravagance By Heather Chaplin Economist Robert H. Frank has written a painstakingly researched new book offering a cure to our destructive love of luxury, but will anybody listen? (02/19/98) Van Gogh Inc. By Larry Kanter You've seen the paintings. Now buy the lunch box (02/12/99) House flash By Heather Chaplin If you're struck with the biological urge to own a home, consider first whether it's a good time to buy (02/05/98) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Browse the Money feature archives		In defense of James Cramer UNFOUNDED ATTACKS ON THE BIG MOUTH OF STOCK MARKET PUNDITRY THREATEN TO PULL FINANCIAL JOURNALISM'S FEW REMAINING TEETH. BY KEN KURSON | I don't labor under the illusion that many readers follow the inside-baseball aspects of financial journalism. But a trend within the industry, exemplified by a ridiculous series of charges leveled at investor/journalist/commentator James Cramer, is threatening to chill what little real financial reporting still exists. Cramer has become a financial celebrity, both by writing about finance in many venues and by managing a $300 million hedge fund for his Cramer-Berkowitz partnership. He is also a co-founder and frequent contributor to TheStreet.com, and a prolific television commentator. On Dec. 2, 1998, Cramer made his every-other-Wednesday appearance as guest host on CNBC's influential morning business program "The Squawk Box." On the show, executives appear via satellite for questioning by the hosts and guest hosts. That day one of the scheduled guests was David Deeds, CEO of WavePhore, a small Arizona company that, like many companies vaguely related to the Internet, had enjoyed a recent run in its stock price. In a somewhat combative segment, Cramer mentioned that he'd called a trader to see if WavePhore had shares available to short; he also mentioned the word "fraud-u-net" as a descriptor of certain Internet companies and opined that "Greenspan doesn't like" small Internet companies to leap to the stratosphere. After the show, WavePhore's stock price took a hit; the outraged company responded with a flurry of press releases and requests that the SEC and Nasdaq (the exchange on which WavePhore trades) investigate Cramer. CNBC suspended Cramer for one appearance while it crafted a uniform set of guidelines for its guest hosts. The issue revolved around whether Cramer had actually tried to short the stock (borrow shares and sell them, hoping the price will fall so the loan can be repaid with shares bought more cheaply). He maintains that he only called to see whether shares were available to short, in order to see how pessimistic the market was about the stock, with no intention of shorting the shares himself. That explanation satisfied CNBC, and nothing seems to have come of WavePhore's efforts to punish Cramer for his opinions. But huge issues about financial journalism remain unsettled. For one thing, where the hell does WavePhore think it gets off, telling a journalist/investor that he dare not speak ill of their company? Every day, company principals -- nearly all of whom hold large positions of their own stock, and thus stand to gain personally from a good performance -- go on financial television to tout their companies' strengths, and no one ever says "boo." But let someone raise even the mildest doubts about the company's prospects, and they go running to tell teacher. This partly reflects a long-standing tenet that shorting is somehow un-American. In fact, skeptical questions about irrationally exuberant stocks serve average investors better than softball questions ever could. And that's the job of hosts on programs -- to serve the viewers' interests, not the company's. But there's a bigger issue at stake here: Can the job of investing money be reconciled with the job of writing about money? In my opinion, Cramer's real job (investor) is of invaluable aid to his side job (journalist). The financial journalism business is riddled with reporters who never engage in the activities they cover. Just as a police force is thought to be more effective and sensitive when it's made up of officers culled from the neighborhoods they patrol, so too are financial journalists better able to understand the weight of their task if they've personally experienced the pain of a bad financial decision, the pleasure of unearthing and sticking by a profitable investment. No one better understands these things -- or is in a better position to render them for noninsiders -- than someone who makes his daily bread actually working in the cloistered world of professional money management. Of course, sticky issues can arise. But we don't expect political journalists to surrender their right to vote, or to slant their reportage to a biased extreme. True, people see things subjectively, so a certain amount of bias can be expected to bleed through. That human beings sound like human beings is cause for delight, not panic. That's why there are smart editors with judgment and integrity. And when the safeguards fail, readers and viewers are free to vote with their feet by not reading or watching sources they don't trust. But the answer to opinionated information is more and varied opinion, not the squelching of it. The WavePhore incident isn't the first time Cramer found himself in the soup over questions about his dual roles. N E X T+P A G E | Cramer's controversial history