Megan McArdle of The Atlantic digs up some embarrassing information on The New York Times’s Edmund Andrews, and the scoop raises questions for him and for the Times.
McArdle finds that Andrews, who reports on the economy, natch, didn’t disclose—in either his New York Times Magazine piece or his book—critical information about his wife’s financial history, information that muddies his story quite a bit. His book (excerpted in the Times Mag) is about his family getting caught up in the great credit crisis, buying a house they clearly couldn’t afford and drowning in the debt. It seems she was caught up before the bubble began.
The odd thing about Andrews’ omission is that he’s already disclosed a lot of embarrassing information about his family’s abysmal financial management (really a lack thereof). That’s what makes the magazine piece work. You don’t come away from it with much sympathy at all for Andrews. You do come away with renewed amazement at the complete insanity of the financial industry: It was falling over itself to lend half a million dollars to people like this?
…I was handing over $4,000 a month in alimony and child-support payments. That left me with take-home pay of $2,777, barely enough to make ends meet in a one-bedroom rental apartment. Patty had yet to even look for a job. At any other time in history, the idea of someone like me borrowing more than $400,000 would have seemed insane.
I’ll turn it over to McArdle now:
At the end of his book’s harrowing account of mortgage mistakes and credit card crises, Edmund Andrews writes: “While our misadventure had certainly been more extreme than those of many other Americans, our situation was not all that unusual.” And indeed the book reads like the story of an American Everyman, easily sucked in to the alluring world of easy credit as he struggled to blend a new family. The terrifying implication is that it could happen to you—to anyone who leads with their heart and not their head.
But en route to that moral, it turns out the story has been tidied up a little. Patty Barreiro, Andrews’ wife, has declared bankruptcy twice. The second time was while they were married, a detail that didn’t make it into either the book or the excerpt that ran in last Sunday’s New York Times Magazine.
She draws the right conclusion:
But this is material information that changes the tenor of his story. Serial bankruptcy is not a creation of the current credit crisis, and it doesn’t just happen to anyone, particularly anyone with a six figure salary.
By omitting relevant information, Andrews is essentially misleading his readers. The new information that his wife has already declared bankruptcy twice changes the story quite a bit. Instead of a tale of how everyone—even Timesmen—lost their heads in the bubble, you now have a far less interesting tale of someone who simply can’t manage her finances—bubble or no. I’m guessing this is why the bankruptcy information didn’t make it into the story.
More problematic is that his wife’s latest bankruptcy came in 2007, which is right in the middle of the events described in the piece. That is critical information. Leaving it out raises credibility questions on everything else in the piece, especially with regards to Andrews’ wife.
For instance, Andrews essentially says his wife is a spendthrift here but makes her out to be a “good” spender—one who’s unselfish:
Patty spent little on herself, but she refused to scrimp on top-quality produce, Starbucks coffee, bottled juices, fresh cheeses and clothing for the children and for me. She regularly bought me new shirts and ties to replace the frayed and drab ones in my closet. She thought it wasn’t worth agonizing over nickels and dimes.

Andrews responds here:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/businessdesk/2009/05/ed-andrews-responds-to-critici.html
#1 Posted by Josh Young, CJR on Fri 22 May 2009 at 08:04 PM
Unbelievable...
"Patty's second bankruptcy stemmed from a loan she received from her sister, while Patty was still living in Los Angeles. At the time, she was caring for four children, working for very modest pay, and receiving almost no child support from her ex-husband. (Despite multiple court orders, he remains chronically delinquent on untold thousands of dollars.)
When Patty couldn't repay, her sister followed her east and sued her. I offered to pay off the loan by withdrawing money out of my 401k, but I wasn't allowed to because the purpose didn't qualify as a "hardship." Without an alternative, Patty had no choice but to seek bankruptcy protection."
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/businessdesk/2009/05/ed-andrews-responds-to-critici.html
#2 Posted by nobody, CJR on Fri 22 May 2009 at 09:23 PM
What about the ethics of Megan McArdle? She should have heard from Andrews before moving ahead with her hit piece. As usual, she is serving the interests of big business against the "liberal media."
#3 Posted by Anonymous, CJR on Sun 24 May 2009 at 05:06 PM
Patti's bankruptcies don't undercut Andrews' story.
The sheer madness of his plan is obvious from the NYT story alone. What kind of lunatic takes out a mortgage that consumes almost all his take home pay on the hunch that his marginally employable wife can rejoin the workforce and earn enough to keep the family afloat? I just don't get how anyone could read Andrews' story and think his fate could befall just anyone.
Megan's making a lot of unfounded assumptions about Patti based on the fact that she had two bankruptcies. Patti's first bankruptcy had nothing to do with her spending habits. Her then-husband, the sole breadwinner in that marriage, surreptitiously refused to file their joint tax returns for several years running. He racked up a $200,000 debt to the IRS that Patti was on the hook for. The second bankruptcy wasn't necessarily her fault either. Patti had defaulted on a loan to her sister, which she took as a recently divorced single mother of four. The sister successfully sued to get her money back and Patti couldn't come up with the money--so she had to declare bankruptcy.
The bottom line is that Andrews borrowed way more than he could afford. Lenders deliberately looked the other way by not checking his stated income--if they had, they would realized that he was way less creditworthy than the average person making $120,000/yr because he was getting $4000/mo automatically deducted from his paycheck. Apparently, they didn't check (or didn't care) that he was married to a woman with two prior bankruptcies!
The argument is that Patti's bankruptcies prove that the Andrewses weren't ordinary people. If these huge subprime mortgages to dodgy borrowers were confined to a handful of financial morons like Andrews, we wouldn't be in an economic crisis right now.
#4 Posted by Lindsay Beyerstein, CJR on Sun 24 May 2009 at 10:20 PM
I agree. McCardle was fed this damaging information about Andrews' wife, probably by someone with intimate knowledge of his personal affairs, such as one of the lenders that is a subject of his book.
This whole thing is designed to smear Andrews and it is working, thanks to this column, Hoyt and others. This really smells.
#5 Posted by Anonymous, CJR on Mon 25 May 2009 at 12:49 PM
Anonymous, it's not relevant to this journalism discussion where the tip came from (if it came from a lender, say, then that's a journalism discussion for The Atlantic). The facts are the facts.
Lindsay, please see my follow-up on this.
#6 Posted by Ryan Chittum, CJR on Wed 27 May 2009 at 03:29 PM
There are numerous ways of getting out of debt within a fixed period. You could enter an IVA, if so you need to ask and get answers to any iva questions you may have. You can take out a consolidation loan, which may be the easiest depending on the amount you owe. You could ask your lender if they can help you sort out a plan, or if you have a relative that may help, ask for that help.
#7 Posted by Oliver Darraugh, CJR on Sat 15 Aug 2009 at 01:14 PM