Reporters at U.S.-based National Public Radio were seeking ways to help the public better understand the financial crisis -- a story that baffles many Americans, due largely to confusing statistics and terms.

So they pooled $1,000 of their own money and bought a "toxic asset," the Poynter Institute recently reported, which they expect to "watch die." (A toxic asset is "a sliver of one of the bonds that fueled the housing boom and then lost their value during the bust," Poynter says.) They will use the toxic asset as a reporting tool -- to generate story ideas and explain complex terms. The reporters told listeners about the purchase, and said that any money they make from the toxic asset will go to charity.

In purchasing the toxic asset, the reporters have become stakeholders in the story. Now, they are are better positioned to understand and report the issue, and to make it "human," they say.

What do you think? Does this raise any ethical issues? Or is becoming a stakeholder an effective way to tell a complex and abstract story that affects many?