First of all, I want to point out the elemental postulate of media relations and public relations: No press is bad press.

In the funky little world of investment newsletters, quirky cynicism is not only accepted, it’s encouraged. In the broader world, FOX News has proven that bomb throwing is much more fun to watch than sober journalism. And now everyone else has joined that view as well, although no one can do it with the panache of Rupert Murdoch.

Also, let me preface my remarks by saying I’m an old-school journalist, learning my craft from the stereotypical chain-smoking, whiskey-drinking misanthropes that were the last generation of print editors and writers.

Today, the Internet version of journalism–for the most part–has more to do with television reportage than what we old schoolers call real journalism. They jog, eat foods rich in omega-3 fatty acids and worry about their “image.” As the print media see it, the TV news execs decide what stories to run on the nightly news by reading The New York Times and The Washington Post on their way to work in the morning. The world of sizzle meets the world of steak.

My point is news outfits like The Motley Fool are the quintessence of the new modern style of online media. Sizzle with some steak. A properly trained journalist is skeptical to the point of misanthropy balanced by the duty to make sure everyone has a chance to chime in (e.g. lie, spin, dissemble, confabulate, defend, assert, attack, deny, etc.) to him or her, then hold those “viewpoints” up to the established facts.

But the world of free electrons allows writers to write whenever and whatever they want, and many people have a difficult time perceiving the blurring between what used to be journalism and what’s become opinion writing that has some factual credibility. And because the public has always distrusted journalists, most are perfectly happy to hear what they want to hear about their world, their country, their stocks. They don’t want to be challenged. And no one, especially a journalist, likes to be wrong, whether about a belief or a fact.

Yet in the investment newsletter business, if you recommend stocks, you’re going to be wrong sometimes. So here it’s even more important that you make sure when you write, you know that perfect knowledge is never an option. You stay humble.

That doesn’t mean you can’t be outspoken or passionate. It just means that there’s always a voice that reminds you that you could be wrong; or worse, someone else may be right.

All this preamble is about a couple recent articles–actually one article that was rewritten into two–regarding a company I’ve watched for years and hold in my The Real Nanotech Investor Portfolio—Altairnano (www.altairnano.com).

I’m not providing the link to the Fool’s articles on this because they’re so overexposed and underachieving that I’d consider it a disservice to send you there. It’s like encouraging someone to eat at a greasy fast-food joint. If you want it, you can easily find it.

This goes back to my initial point; I’m conflicted even writing this because it just gives the Fool more press, which is what it doesn’t need.

The Fool has been following Altair for some time as well and has done some good reporting. For the most part, we agreed that the company was making progress from a small, specialized materials company that was trying to reap the benefits of the new nano hype, without having much substance behind it, to a well-managed company under a new CEO that has some potentially good things in store for investors as it slogs across the Valley of Death. And it’s fairly well provisioned for that trek relative to its peers.

But the Fool and its coterie of writers and hangers-on–whose enormous readership has always escaped me other than the fact that the staff is very clever and has found the perfect line between pandering to the hip zeitgeist and providing analysis that passes for impressive by stock market neophytes–have decided that Altair is to be punished for being a development company that needs money to survive until one pipeline product gets traction. Gutsy move.

The story (er, stories) reads like a gossip column. And throughout all this inside pool badinage, the one thing this Fool leaves out of his story is the fact that AES Corp (www.aes.com), one of the largest global utility producers in the world, just kicked $3 million into the company’s coffers at 3.35 a share.

Now, I may not be a Fool, but most successful companies I know don’t drop that kind of change into something without doing serious due diligence. And if it paid 3.35, it didn’t buy at the top; that price meant there was something more to expect.

But I’m sure the Fool is right. I’m sure all his impressive balance sheet and income statement work will prove to be the smartest way to evaluate a development-stage company.

It’s odd how the Fool didn’t apply these standards to its patron AOL in the Fool’s early days. Or even when the stock collapsed. I guess the Fool just keeps learning.

What I find most infuriating about this is that it’s a bullying tactic. It’s presenting opinion as fact, without all the facts. Perhaps the writer is simply a Bill O’Reilly wannabe; that would be understandable at least. Because this type of thing is fair and balanced without being fair or balanced.

Don’t get me wrong: I completely support advocacy. But the Fool moves stocks; it knows this. And it’s odd to see the vehemence and double posting of this story in the face of a big rally in Altair stock and pretty good earnings numbers, regardless of the Fool’s superficial analysis.

And ultimately, the fact is no one knows whether Altair will sell 10 NanoSafe batteries or 100,000 in 2007. But the batteries are in prototype vehicles, and the vehicles are running reliably with great performance characteristics unmatched in the alternative energy industry.

That’s something the Fool failed to mention. And it’s more than likely it skipped that part because it’s too easy to beat up the company for its past and it’s a bit harder to learn the science. After all, this is a technology company; no one in his or her right mind buys a development-tech company because of its books.

Once again, like so much other fast-food, new journalism-type fare, The Motley Fool offers something that seems substantial but only serves to diminish the debate and obscure the facts. That isn’t the goal of journalists; it’s the goal of people who aren’t ready to be real journalists. Reader beware.