Opinions should be buttressed by facts

Did InvestmentNews go too far when in an editorial we charged FSI, a trade…

Did InvestmentNews go too far when in an editorial we charged FSI, a trade organization representing independent financial advisers, with “shrouding” its self-interest in pushing back on the Labor Department’s fiduciary rule? A handful of readers, including the top brass at the lobbying group, think we did.
The Nov. 14 editorial called on President-elect Donald Trump to take a cautious approach to dismantling regulations and laws instituted during the Obama administration, including the DOL fiduciary rule. We cautioned Mr. Trump to be careful in dealing with lobbying groups such as the Financial Services Institute. That’s because FSI had issued a statement the day after the election, offering to work with the Trump administration “in ensuring Main Street Americans have access to objective and affordable financial advice as they save for a dignified retirement.”
We then wrote that FSI was a longtime critic of the DOL rule, “shrouding its self-interest in a plea to ensure that Main Street Americans have access to affordable financial advice.”
(Related read: Trump victory puts DOL fiduciary rule in limbo)
FSI officials were understandably upset. Why had we picked them out of the many groups that oppose the DOL rule? They felt that we had made the group appear sinister and less than honest.
Upon reflection, I think they have a point. InvestmentNews’ editorial board — of which I am a member — fell short in providing readers with the proper context to support its position and, therefore, left itself open to misinterpretation.

ONLY GROUP MENTIONED

By way of context, FSI was the only lobbying group mentioned in the editorial because it was the only group we knew of that had issued a statement offering its help to the Trump administration. We wanted the administration to know that the group had other interests at heart, namely those of the more than 100 independent broker-dealers it represented in Washington and their 160,000 financial advisers.
(Related read: Knut Rostad: Trump adviser Anthony Scaramucci should apologize for DOL fiduciary rule remarks)
Editorials are meant to be opinionated. Those opinions, however, should be buttressed with the facts and reasons that formed them. In the case of FSI, I believe our overall opinion was based on fact and reason. Unfortunately, we diminished the power of our argument when we used such incendiary words as “shrouding” and “self-interest” without providing the context to support them. As a result, a well-grounded opinion landed on some readers’ ears like an ill-founded attack.