Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-ne ... MW_popular" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Sent from the center of the universe.

Good article and I agree.

I tend to be most concerned with #2, the money issue, especially with the glut of low-quality blog material and the need for page counts through advertising. The multiple site paywall has been mentioned as a potential solution: one account... pay for high quality content on any site.

http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/19/the-fu ... tent-wars/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

CID1990 wrote:http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-ne ... MW_popular


Sent from the center of the universe.

Thanks for the article. Here is one of my favorite lines

If you want to be a glad-handing politician, be a glad-handing politician. If you want to be a reporter, then be angry, ask awkward questions, and absolutely hate it when everyone agrees with you

After long analysis and debate, the jury is pretty much in on the housing bubble and financial crisis.

Wall Street did it.

A broken system with lots and lots of bad incentives meant speculators got paid to take big, stupid gambles on real estate, mortgage brokers got paid to write crazy loans, bankers got paid to pass the paper on to clients, and ratings agencies got paid to say it was all going to be OK. There was more to it than that, but that’s a good capsule summary.

Ibanez wrote:

After long analysis and debate, the jury is pretty much in on the housing bubble and financial crisis.

Wall Street did it.

A broken system with lots and lots of bad incentives meant speculators got paid to take big, stupid gambles on real estate, mortgage brokers got paid to write crazy loans, bankers got paid to pass the paper on to clients, and ratings agencies got paid to say it was all going to be OK. There was more to it than that, but that’s a good capsule summary.

I like how he didn't expand on what those "bad incentives" were.


Sent from the center of the universe.

CID1990 wrote:

Ibanez wrote:

I like how he didn't expand on what those "bad incentives" were.


Sent from the center of the universe.

I like how there's so much personal accountability on the part of the person actually taking OUT the mortgage.

AZGrizFan wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
I like how he didn't expand on what those "bad incentives" were.


Sent from the center of the universe.

I like how there's so much personal accountability on the part of the person actually taking OUT the mortgage.

If I'm not mistaken, that isn't seen as the real problem. Lenders were preying on ignorant homeowners and people to think the loan was a good deal. I saw this first hand when I got out of college and was with a mortgage company and it's the reason why I quit that company. I wanted nothing to do with them. Of course, the homeowner has to take responsibility for their actions and the business has to take responsibility for it's predatory practices. Businesses provided the "truth in lending" documents and it was on the borrower to understand what they were doing. But I think you can have a strong argument that many loans were not done in good faith.

Wouldn't you agree?

Much of that "predatory" behavior was mandated by Uncle Sam.

CitadelGrad wrote:Much of that "predatory" behavior was mandated by Uncle Sam.

And profited on by Wall Street. Why you'd almost think they colluded on it.

Ibanez wrote:Of course, the homeowner has to take responsibility for their actions...

Wouldn't you agree?

See, that's just it. In today's "no fault" world where everything bad that happens to you is ALWAYS someone elses's fault, the homeowners really DON'T have to take responsibility...when having sex with an intern isn't considered "sex", when a president goes before a judge and debates the definition of the word "is", when you can spill a hot cup of coffee on your lap and make $6 million for being a retard, the world has officially gone loco.

In all seriousness I think the media have been somewhat unreliable for at least as far back as when I first starting noticing it back in the 1970s. And I don't think the fundamental problem are those the author talks about. Well...maybe the "narrative" thing to some extent.

The biggest problem I think, is the desire to make a splash. Exaggeration is rampant. An example I'll mention because I have personal knowledge of the reality is the thing about post Katrina New Orleans area flood waters being a "toxic soup." Not true at all but an academic said it, it was catchy, and it made a splash.

The next biggest problem, I think, is that reporters frequently have to report on things they don't understand at all.

I also think that reporters, at times, intentionally create false impressions in order to fit a narrative. I think the first time I had personal experience with that is when my younger sister was in high school and they were going to combine her high school with another one. She went to a school board meeting specifically to oppose the action. She was interviewed. When she appeared on a local newscast she was shown making a portion of a statement out of context so that it appeared that she actually favored the consolidation. She was actually presented as an example of a person favoring the action when she went there specifically to oppose it and did so.

Happened to me too when I was a biologist for a State. A TV reporter interviewed me for about an hour asking me questions. Basically it had to do with the idea that coastal development was going to threaten seafood safety. I never said that it did. In fact I could see what was going on and made every effort to avoid saying it. But they managed to find a statement out of context to put on a newscast that fit the overall narrative that people should worry about seafood safety. Out of an hour of interview they had one maybe five second statement on the newscast, taken out of context, making it seem as though the state biologist said there was a need to be concerned about seafood safety.

And both of those things happened during the 1980s.

I have lots more stories about experiences with the news media and the false impressions created.

The problem with the media being unreliable in terms of creating accurate impressions about what's going on is, in my opinion, a very old one. It's not a new thing.

BTW I find it ironic that the author would talk about a right wing media bias. He says the "right wing" media is controlled by a "narrative" with respect to the housing bubble/financial crisis. He says that right after he parrots lines consistent with the narrative that "Wall Street did it."

JohnStOnge wrote:BTW I find it ironic that the author would talk about a right wing media bias. He says the "right wing" media is controlled by a "narrative" with respect to the housing bubble/financial crisis. He says that right after he parrots lines consistent with the narrative that "Wall Street did it."

The msm, administration, and especially the right wing media gave Wall Street a pass.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Ibanez wrote:Of course, the homeowner has to take responsibility for their actions...

Wouldn't you agree?

See, that's just it. In today's "no fault" world where everything bad that happens to you is ALWAYS someone elses's fault, the homeowners really DON'T have to take responsibility...when having sex with an intern isn't considered "sex", when a president goes before a judge and debates the definition of the word "is", when you can spill a hot cup of coffee on your lap and make $6 million for being a retard, the world has officially gone loco.

Or when you lie to your staff about your location, fly to Argentina and continue an affair? Something like that? I agree.