Carnegie Wylie isn’t a client, it is an investor. It had Qantas as a client. We are already getting to a tenuous connection here, to a deal in which Kohler has no direct interest.

As nobody has provided any evidence that Kohler is anything other than a good business journalist who tells it as he sees it I don’t think your disclaimer is necessary.

Of course some already have. http://www.moneymanagers.com.au/your_money_guide.asp

When the theoretical problem becomes real it is too late, this is why we have disclosure requirements in the first place.

This is not about Alan Kohlers personal integrity or his general observations on the financial markets but rather his comments regarding the likely path of the QANTAS share price when he had a clear conflict of interest. Its not rocket science.

I realise that, for the sake of simplicity, there is a case for applying rules that are generally sound even on occasions when they are unnecessary. But I am not inclined to criticise those who breach them when a careful examination of the issue suggests that (as in this case) the real interests lie elsewhere and there are other considerations counting against it, such as the reality that it would in effect be advertising.

Bob Mansfield is a different case – I don’t think he would make a good journalist. But since anyone who has ever looked at the business news knows his history, disclosure would be theoretically desirable but redundant for all practical purposes. It’s like a ‘disclosure’ appearing on Paul Keating’s articles suggesting that just maybe he is not an objective observer of politics.

Is this real/theoretical dichotomy a standard one, or is your invention? The relevant question, as far as my naive understanding goes, is whether there is a potential conflict. In other words, might situations plausibly arise where Kohler has to make a hard choice between telling ABC viewers the full story and keeping Carnegie Wylie happy?

I would have thought that the relevant point for Kohler’s defenders to make is that he isn’t actually a business owner or manager. But your argument seems to let them off the hook as well. I’d be interested to know: would you be happy if Bob Mansfield took up a part time job reporting business developments on the ABC? After all, he couldn’t force people to follow his advice.

The practical matters of how to make a disclaimer in a television bulletin, and how to avoid turning them into ads for Eureka, are side issues. Use your imagination.

Niall

Whittaker does have disclosures. Do you know something about Kerry O’Brien et al.?

The whole issue is a complete and utter nonsense bordering on some perverse form of conspiracy theory.

Kohler has no direct power through what he says – he is not like a Minister making decisions which can directly affect people. Further, we need to look at the kind of people who might be influenced by ‘tainted’ news. I would be surprised if many investors made their decisions based solely on what they saw on the ABC news. If they are that amateurish, a disclosure is not going to save them.

Also, actual investors are likely to know already about the Eureka Report connection – I only skim read the business pages of the newspapers occasionally, but I was aware of it.

In this case, we have to weigh up the possible negative effects of disclosure as well. Mentioning the Eureka Report would be advertising. Though they do shamelessly promote the efforts of ABC mates through ABC shop advertising, it would be better to keep this out of the news.

Also, how often does it need to be mentioned? A 30 minute news bulletin is far more constrained than a newspaper in what it can cover already, so why replace real news with stuff like this?

Since advertising the name of his report could be easily avoided it is hardly a barrier to some form of disclosure when there is such a clear conflict of interest.

A conflict of interest does not necessarily mean the analyst / adviser / broker is acting in an unethical manner, just that the conflict needs to be managed with disclosure a pretty basic requirement.

I understand some of the people who visit and comment on these sites might not get it, but you surprise me.

A great pity that its targets are so very predictable; its regular attacks on the IPA, Bolt and Blair and the ripostes from them are one of the best spectator sports going. Did you see Blair’s discovery that the ‘hate comments’ were actually supplied by member of a hate site manipulating Media Watch’s prejudices?

(Mark has a history of specious criticism of Media Watch , which he once promised to elaborate on !)

I’ll get there one day, James, though I obviously don’t think I’m being specious! Perhaps when I have a staff of researchers like Media Watch ;)

I agree the show on Kohler was good value. It is what we should see more of from them.