Many organizations, such as newspaper and magazine publishers and radio and television stations that accept ads, say that their ad departments are separate from their editorial departments. The truth, however, is that in most of these organizations, advertisers wield influence over the content. At a minimum, the editorial environment must be perceived as conducive to the sale of the advertiser's product.

The stock market cable television channels, for example, carry many ads from brokers catering to investors who pick and trade their own stocks. Furthermore, such stations carry ads from firms that purport to teach you how to make big bucks day trading (see Chapter 5). Not surprisingly, such stations offer many "news" segments on their shows that cater to stock traders and condone and endorse foolish strategies, such as day trading, instead of condemning them. Instead of asking themselves what's in the best interests of their viewers, listeners, and readers, executives at too many media and publishing firms ask what will attract attention and advertisers.

In most organizations, advertisers can have a direct and adulterating influence on editorial content. Specifically, some media organizations and publishers simply won't say something negative about a major advertiser or will highlight and praise investment companies that are big advertisers.

More than a few publications have attempted to edit out critical comments that I've made about companies with lousy products that turned out to be advertisers in their publications. Some editors simply say that they don't want to bite the hand that feeds them. Others are less candid about why they remove such criticism. The bottom line is still the same: Advertisers' influence squashes freedom of speech and, more importantly, prevents readers, viewers, and listeners from getting the truth and best advice. (By the way, I don't write for organizations that edit my work in such a fashion.)

Because of the previously mentioned reasons and an overall lack of concern for the value of information and advice, some investing resources cut corners on the quality of their content. Because consumers often pay nothing or next to nothing for many investment resources, the media have an incentive to sell advertising space and not to hire high-quality writers who can offer sound advice to readers.

All things being equal, you have a greater chance of finding quality content when subscriber fees account for the bulk of a company's revenue and advertising accounts for little or none of the revenue. This generalization, of course, is just that — a generalization. Some publications that derive a reasonable portion of their revenues from advertising have some good columns and content. Conversely, some relatively ad-free sources aren't very good.

Readers of my books can clearly understand my philosophies about investing. I advocate buying and holding, not trading and gambling. I explain how to build wealth through proven vehicles, including stocks, real estate, and small-business ownership. My guiding beliefs are clearly detailed on the Cheat Sheet in the front of this book.

Just about everywhere you turn these days — radio, television, and the Internet — you can get up-to-the-minute updates on financial markets around the globe. Although most investors have a natural curiosity about how their investments are doing, from my experience, the constant barrage of updates causes a loss of focus on the big picture. In many cases, publishing and media companies report what I call the "noise" rather than the news of the day. Some companies are far worse about doing so than others.

Examine the backgrounds, including professional work experience and education credentials, of a resource's writers, hosts, and/or anchors. If such information isn't given or easily found, that's usually a red flag. People with something to hide, or a lack of something significantly redeeming to say about themselves, usually don't promote their backgrounds.