In the late 1990s, regulators were toying with the idea of requiring the media to issue disclaimers when presenting stories about investments and the investment process, similar to ones required of our industry. They proposed requiring that hedge clauses be added to a variety of financial articles in print and interviews on TV.

I vehemently opposed that idea on the basis of the media's First Amendment rights. My position was that our industry couldn't dictate—much less enforce—policy to the media as they were not subject to our regulation.

Today, I apologize for that stand.

The amount of investment news on TV, radio and print is increasing daily. And, in my humble opinion, few reporters know enough to ask the right questions. Nor do they present their news in a balanced, objective manner. As a result, investors, many of whom are naïve, are being poorly educated, making it more difficult for concerned financial advisors to properly assist and guide them.

For example, a newspaper reporter interviewed a noted bank analyst, highlighting his recent performance and his prognosis for the 2008 market—which so far has proved dead wrong. He was an easy interview, with colorful quotes. My concern, however, is that the article made him seem as if he only picks winners and he knows exactly when to sell. His broker-dealer could never have written an article like that for public consumption without adding disclaimers.

One national television news network recently began a series of stories giving investment advice. When the market was nearing its bottom, it aired the views of an "expert" guiding investors to sell positions at the first upswing and move into money markets.

This coverage does an injustice to investors who are trying frantically to understand what is happening to their portfolios, particularly in a down market. Those who produce it have the ability to shape opinion in such a way that financial advisors are struggling to keep clients from making disastrous decisions.

The media has an obligation to educate the public—including the investing public—but it must do so in a responsible, objective manner with well-trained reporters, preferably ones who have come from our industry and who have sufficient time and space to present a balanced story. I don't believe reporters mean to do harm. They just don't understand their role in the investor-education process.

Still, the media should have the same responsibility toward investor education that we, as financial advisors, have.

If investors read that article quoting the bank analyst and began investing through his firm thinking they have the guru of gurus, it's conceivable they would have only seen the short end of the stick in 2008. As for the investors who liquidated their portfolios during an upswing and moved cash into money markets as interest rates declined, my heart goes out to them.

Unless the media can be self-disciplined and regulate itself, it may be necessary for regulators to move in the direction they were considering a decade ago. My hope is that they can gain some traction at media-industry conferences to make their case.

If that doesn't work, then maybe they should consider making reporters and their companies unregistered investment advisors. I don't think that's what the media or our industry wants, but the public's interest must be protected. Investors' trust and confidence in the markets, and our ability to service them, may very well depend on it.

Larry Silver, director of marketing at Raymond James Financial until his retirement, writes about investment firm practices from Oldsmar, Fla. He can be reached at silvermarketing@earthlink.net.