Dean Starkman of the Columbia Journalism Review writes Friday about the feud between CNBC and Barron’s that resulted after the weekly publication ran a story questioning the effectiveness of “Mad Money” host Jim Cramer‘s stock picks.
Since the August 2007 article, few Barron’s journalists have appeared on CNBC after regularly making appearances before the article ran. Starkman assesses the situation and concludes that the Barron’s article was fair.
He wrote, “In the end, was the Barron’s piece a hatchet job, as CNBC contends? No, it really was not.
“So, was CNBC wrong to throw Barron’s off the air? Actually, no. It’s its air.
“Did CNBC behave unprofessionally, as Barron’s contends? No—except to the extent that its own policies force it into disingenuous arguments about what is and isn’t a “pick.â€?
“This is the contradiction that the Barron’s story, and the subsequent fallout, have exposed. It’s up to CNBC to resolve it.”
Read more here.
