And to you and Steve – you must be quite proud. Rebecca – that was so well said. I think that part of what is unfortunate about some of the media sources that are generally deemed ‘responsible’, is that although a report may be true, it may not contain the entire truth because it fails to create the type of headline that generates interest.

I am fascinated with the number of my clients that love to forward me these horror story articles about the housing market/economy. I appreciate them, but it is interesting that the ones that are the bleakest are the ones they feel compelled to forward. Media sources are providing legitimate news, but clearly, they are also providing the headlines that consumers are seeking.

>The task that must now be taken up by the reputable news sources is to provide context for readers, rather than just reports of the news. In this way, objective guidance will be provided to those readers who are sinking beneath the weight of information overload.

Graduate soon so you can make some sense of this blog!

Now, to address some of the points made in the original post.

First, it is true that some media outlets sensationalize current events, but it is important to note that good journalism still exists, and should not be confused with entertainment programs on which pundits with no journalistic training discuss the news. “The Media” is not “journalism.” Period.

Second, journalists should be applauded for reporting upon the stories people don’t necessarily wish to hear, as long as these stories are relevant and deserve attention by the public (I feel that the current state of the economy is an example of such a relevant, important story). Immediately following 9/11, journalists and the media, in an attempt to be “patriotic” and to maintain a cheery mood, chose not to fully report on such stories as the Patriot Act and the “evidence” of WMDs in Iraq. It is never the job of journalists to be positive when the news is negative; it is their job to seek the truth and report it, no matter how depressing that truth may be.

Finally, an unrelated comment: there need not be any bad blood between blogging and more traditional journalism. Ultimately, the two share similar goals. And in this economic climate, the formerly elitist journalists have lost their jobs or been greatly humbled. In my journalism school, at least, the focus is on the future–and the future will not be printed on any paper.

just my 2 cents…

Not to excuse the media – they were equally worthless suring the unsupportabe run-up as they will be during the next few years of doom and gloom – but WAMU was going BLAMU sooner or later. It’s demise may have been accelerated a few weeks or months at most, but the end result did not change. They gave money away loan after loan, and tried to make it up on volume. Turns out, that’s a bad business model.

Keep your eyes on “too big too fail” Chase. Let’s see who gets more gubment money, Citi or Chase….

I have a very real example of the media trying to get headlines. A few months ago there was a rumor that Washington Mutual Savings Bank might be having trouble. The Feds looked into it and found that they were fully capitalized. Unfortunately the news media didn’t report it with that much restraint, and in the following two days there was a run on the bank to the tune of over 260 Billion. Just think, 260 Billion dollars were withdrawn in two days because some news service decided to make ‘news’ of something that wasn’t real. Needless to say the bank failed and Chase came in to buy them out. This Bank had been in business for over 120 years and was not a financial risk until an irresponsible news service decided to label it as such.

So much for my two cents. I wonder what would happen it the media started reporting that housing prices are going up? Would that make it true? I’ll bet it would.