THE FIENDISH ups and downs of the Nasdaq have made it quite clear that numbers, rational analyses, and objectivity don't guide financial markets. The question remains, however, whether we should expect steady, uninflected precision from financial reporters. Traditionally, market reporters have been prohibited from participating in the market in order to ensure an unbiased perspective, but some media outlets are reconsidering this monklike seclusion and allowing its reporters and columnists to dive in and glory in their conflict of interest. A "hot pick" from a widely read market guru has the potential to send a small stock soaring, -- especially if that guru is already holding a few hundred shares. It seemed to be working for a while, this New Journalism of the financial world, but recently the volatile mix of advice and self-interest has been blowing up in a few pundit's faces.

Columnists traditionally had more leeway than news reporters (sometimes verging into infomercial territory), but even supposedly fact-based reporters are getting into the act with the approval of their editors. Not a year ago, a gossip columnist was sacked by the San Jose Mercury News for netting a few thousand from a "friends and family" stock offering even though she wrote about high-tech society, not stocks; last week, Jon Markman, the managing editor of MSN's MoneyCentral site, emerged unscathed after lionizing companies he had shares of in his on-line column, possibly driving up share value. Markman even boasted that "the emotional value of owning stocks helps us be better writers" to the Washington Post.

Rival site TheStreet.com has in place a strict set of restrictions that limit its editorial staff to stock in the company itself and mutual funds, says editor-in-chief Dave Kansas: "In our space," Kansas says, "we want to keep writers as unconflicted as possible" to ensure credibility. That said, Kansas adds that TheStreet.com also uses outside contributors for investing how-tos, legal analysis, and the financial equivalent of color commentary who are free of such restrictions and write about stocks they already own. What guards propriety in this case is a strict policy of disclosure; op-ed and commentary pieces are followed by a listing of companies the writer has an interest in. "At some time, readers like to have viewpoints of those in the arena," he says, "and we think readers are smart enough to distinguish" these opinion pieces from strict journalism, though Kansas admits that it takes continual effort to ensure proper and clear labeling of the two types of stories.

Ironically, TheStreet.com is on the outs with Fox News, its production partner for a weekly TheStreet-branded cable show, over this very point. A few weeks ago, Jim Cramer, a cofounder of TheStreet.com and hefty stockholder, tapped TheStreet.com as a good buy, despite its recent deflation. Fox officials told the Daily News they thought this was a breach of taste and trust, even with the disclosure of Cramer's position; Cramer then ditched the subsequent week's taping of the show and unilaterally announced its cancellation. In turn, Fox whipped up a breach-of-contract suit. Giving this all the air of a fratricidal Greek tragedy: Fox's parent company, News Corp., owns a 1.6 percent stake in TheStreet.com.

It all goes to show that in the quick-hit world of modern trading, labels may be irrelevant noise. "We get all the news, and we know that news will give a stock an initial kick," says Jason Gagne, a trader at New York City's Broadway Trading LLC. And Markman's three columns on Scandinavia Co. (later renamed Xcelera.com) certainly gave that little company a kick; the stock jumped over three thousand percent in six months, during which Markman touted the company's chances to increase in worth ten thousand percent in ten years. Likewise, Markman synergized his position with Superconductor Technologies Inc., both owning and promoting the stock. (Both stocks, like most tech offerings, have since dropped from their sky-high peaks.)

True objectivity has, of course, always been a MacGuffin in the world of journalism. Throwing one's editorial hands up, however, isn't the reasoned response. With such a need for instant information and action, investors can too easily be led into frenzied buying or selling by a whisper. If a company official were to buy up a load of stock, start a favorable rumor, and then sell after a price surge, he or she would be nailed for stock manipulation. There is value in getting the inside angle, especially in something as frothy, protean, and exciting (to some) as the stock market, but it's not a spectator sport -- people act on what they read. Were there world enough and time, readers could vet portfolios, divine out the conscious and unconscious influences at work on the writers, and react accordingly, separating "hard" news from valid (and valuable, if interested) inside experience. But there isn't world enough, and there isn't time enough. The burden of credibility must remain on the shoulders of the publications, and readers shouldn't have to wonder whose interests are being served.