These days, few advisors have anything good to say about the media. Certainly, investor anxiety after the "black Monday" drop on January 21 was fanned by front page headlines such as the National Post's "Markets plummet" on the next day. (When I think of something "plummeting", the vision that comes to mind is an elevator in free fall - hardly a reassuring analogy and not remotely describing a 5% drop in the market). The Globe was only a bit better - the front page of the business section was headed "US Crisis Triggers Global Rout" (a rout? really?) with a picture of Ben Bernanke with his eyes closed and his head in his hands.

In this commentary, I hope to do two things: first, provide perspective on the media's behaviour and second, identify practical steps to neutralize the most harmful aspects of the media and to capitalize on their positive elements.

It's important to bear in mind that the media sees its role as being skeptical and asking tough questions, essentially serving as advocate for its readers, listeners or viewers. It's hard to argue with that - where we have legitimate complaint is when the press crosses the line from skepticism to cynicism.

There is no question that the media, like all of us, is prone to exaggeration - in this they reflect the times in which we live. This is especially true when it comes to headline writers, who are the ones with real power to influence investor sentiment - more than the reporters who write the stories or the editors who decide where to run them. For headline writers the cardinal sin is being boring - so they push the limits of accuracy to write catchy headlines that draw readers in.

Let me assure the conspiracy theorists among advisors that this is not a plot to make life difficult (nor is it out of any desire to "sell newspapers"). Rather, it is the natural outcome of human interest in what is unusual and extraordinary - both positive and negative. Witness Bay Street's celebrity economists who glean headlines based on Cassandra like predictions of imminent crises, which might be deflation one day, the bird flu the next or the impact of oil prices at $150 or $200 (or $50 for that matter) on still another. Or the guest columnist in the Globe who keeps beating the drum about the U.S. system facing a melt down akin to Japan's in the late 1990s.

The large majority of the media try very hard to provide a balanced point of view. Look for example at Rob Carrick and Jon Chevreau (arguably Canada's most influential personal finance columnists) on the day after the big January drop. Both urged readers to stay calm and to avoid drastic measures. Carrick's column was headlined ‘Avoid mistakes with lasting effects", the heading on Chevreau's piece on the front page of the Post's business section was "Bargains abound for patient, long term investors".

And just a week ago Saturday, Carrick's column was headed "Funds that can weather the storm". He began his column with the words: "Break away from the pack - put your money in the stock market this RRSP season" and went on to profile seven funds that stood up in the last bear market. While we will not always agree with them (particularly on their infatuation with ETFs), Carrick and Chevreau (along with personal finance writers such as Jonathan Clements in the Wall Street Journal and most of their colleagues at other Canadian papers) have been consistent voices of reason in these tough markets.

The bottom line - yes, there are mediocre journalists who do sensational, shoddily researched work (just as there are, regrettably, more than a few mediocre financial advisors) - but those are greatly outweighed by those who genuinely try to provide balanced, reasoned guidance for the investing public. And just as the average investor has become much more savvy, so the media has become a lot more knowledgeable - I would put the level of insight from Globe columnist Derek Decloet up against just about any Bay Street analyst.

Given that the media aren't going to go away (rest assured that they're with us for the duration), there are two things advisors can do.

First of all, try to immunize clients against some of the extreme headlines which market volatility seems to evoke. Flu shots work by giving us mild exposure to the disease - thus helping us develop resistance against the real thing. The same principle applies in assisting clients to heighten their immunity to alarmist headlines - when markets have stabilized and you're meeting with clients, take three minutes to remind investors of the dire headlines on the day after the January drop. You might also point out that apocalyptic radio reports of 200 or 300 point drops on the Dow or TSX might have been relevant when the indexes were at 4000 or even 6000 but much less meaningful given today's levels.

By showing clients headlines from the day following black Monday in January or the doom and gloom newspaper coverage in the fall of 1998 (when the world financial system was supposed to collapse due to the Asian contagion, Russian ruble crisis and Long Term Credit's misadventures), you make it more likely they'll stay calm the next time we see similar coverage. This won't eliminate concern entirely - but with luck it will lessen it. Talk to clients about the fact that market drops have happened before and will happen again, the key is not to allow emotions to be overly affected.

The second thing which advisors can do is to borrow the media's perception of objectivity and make their credibility work for you by showing clients copies of articles and columns that reinforce the recommendations you're making. Just one example, Rob Carrick wrote a column in January highlighting the fact that dividend yields on Canadian bank stocks provide the same after tax return as bonds; he went on to comments on the low likelihood that our banks will follow some U.S. examples such as Citigroup and cut those dividends.

A column such as that, sent to follow up a conversation about the buying opportunity among major banks, can be very effective in supporting your case. (One Chairman's Club advisor recently told me that when he was prospecting in the early 80s, he always carried a copy of a Globe and Mail story on the dividend tax credit - because prospects wouldn't believe him otherwise).

Bear in mind that you do have to get permission from newspapers' before sending articles to clients and there is a cost to reprints (ranging from $50 to $500 for 500 copies). By contrast, you can email clients with a link to an article at the newspaper's website at little or no cost or a firm can pay a modest fee to allow all its advisors to email an article to clients - check your firm's policy on this.

Love them or hate them, the media are a fact of life. We don't have any influence on what they choose to report or how they report it - but we can prepare clients for the overblown reaction to normal events and borrow their credibility to help us solidify the case we make with clients.