A long-lost friend arranged to meet for lunch the other day and I rather looked forward to the event. Both of us had not met for at least five years. We had much catching up to do.

Even before I could order my food, however, I started to get disappointed. For, it became clear that the primary reason for lunch was not to catch up with each other. It was to clarify an article that I had written about multi-level marketing (MLM).

I had, in December, interviewed a former MLM agent who exposed some of the unscrupulous practices in the industry. (See "I don't want to be a legal conman!")

My long-lost friend wanted to ''enlighten'' me about the positive aspects of MLM, namely, that it is a great way to make money.

Yes, I know. I believe it when his girlfriend said one of her ''upliners'' (people higher up the multi-level marketing chain) was earning $30,000 per month after just 14 months in the business.

I also believe it when she said her network now has 20,000 members. MLM is certainly hot. Lots of people certainly believe that MLM is fantastic.

My friend felt strongly that, as a professional journalist, I should have presented the viewpoints of MLM proponents in order to write a more ''balanced'' article.

I disagree. The purpose of newspaper journalism is to present what is generally not known; to highlight something "new".

The fact that some people earn big money through MLM is already widely known. That is why hundreds of thousands of people have joined the business. It is a fact worth mentioning but there is no need to dwell on it.

In fact, I do not think the one article I wrote was even enough to balance the word-of-mouth testimonies of MLM proponents.

Moreover, shortly after my article was published, The Sunday Times came out with a two-page feature comprising mostly positive comments about MLM, quoting people in the business. What else do we expect them to say? That it is bad and yet they continue to do it?

---

Unbalanced

Where is the balance? As a champion of some less popular causes, I am all too aware of how unbalanced press reports can be.

For example, every time there is a press report about the benefits of some alternative therapy, there will inevitably be comments from medical doctors pooh-poohing it.

Yet, when there are reports about the benefits of medical treatment, the press very seldom feels any need to balance such reports with the views of alternative health practitioners.

Some years back, I was invited to take part in a radio forum about vegetarianism. (I am not vegetarian but was invited at that time as the publisher of a health newsletter, someone knowledgeable about the health benefits of a vegetarian diet).

When I arrived at the radio station, I was both shocked and insulted that the radio host had invited someone with obvious vested interests - the manager of a steak and ribs restaurant - to ''balance'' my views.

Back to MLM ? My friend and I did share some common ground.

We both agreed that many MLM companies were not quite scrupulous in the way they conducted their business. When I mentioned that someone from a certain Company X had tried to cheat me, his girlfriend exclaimed: ''That man is a crook!''

They both had been cheated, of nearly $1,000 each, by that same man.

My friend insisted, however, that his company, Company Y, is honest and ethical. He insisted that I attend a talk, visit certain websites, read certain books and magazines... so as to ''write a balanced report''.

He did not realise that I had been similarly approached by members of Company X, whose agent had tried to cheat me, also insisting that I should ''write a balanced report''.

What am I to do? It's better that I stay unbalanced.