So we’ve got a nationwide scandal in the still-crippled industry that caused the crisis in the first place—a scandal with potentially systemic (meaning crisis-causing) implications. And how has our leading financial newspaper covered it?
Well it hasn’t, really. Not much, anyway.
The Wall Street Journal hasn’t had a single page one piece on the scandal, which is now a couple of weeks old. And the paper has had just one section-front story on it: Wednesday’s good piece in Money & Investing on how mortgage-securities investors are threatened by it.
Not that there’s been much inside coverage, either.
There’s an A3 news story today. There was an inside story yesterday from the Bay Area that touches around the edges of the scandal but, bizarrely, doesn’t even mention it. On Monday there was a decent feature, also on A3. There was a 700-word C5 story a couple of weeks ago, and other than three or four FT-length news stories, that’s it.
Compare that to The New York Times and Washington Post which (especially the Post) have a fraction of the business staff that the Journal has.
The Times has put the story on a section front eight times, including twice on the front page this week.
The Post has done even better. I count four page one stories on the scandal, including an agenda-setting one on September 23, and several other major pieces.
The Journal is getting its clock cleaned on this story. (For that matter, so has the Financial Times, although it has put the story on page one once, and has the excuse of being based in the UK). And not just by biggies like the Times and the Post. Go click the real estate keyword over at Yves Smith’s Naked Capitalism and look how outclassed it has been by a single blogger.
Admittedly, Smith has done yeoman’s work on this story, but she’s one person. It’s time for the Journal to flex its muscles on this one.
The Post and Times may have had more stories on the front page, but they insist in headlines and lead paragraphs on using terms like "flaws," "errors in paperwork," "problems with mortgage documents..."
Mischaracterizing blatant fraud as "errors," "flaws," and "problems" just makes the Times and Post look like foolish lapdogs.
#1 Posted by Robert, CJR on Sat 9 Oct 2010 at 03:35 AM
So, you fell for that Rupert-Murdoch-won't interfere-with-editorial-content too, did you? Meanwhile, back in the real world, the story goes like this - Rupert Murdoch is in the process of owning his brand of political party, the Teabag-Republicans, in order to point the finger of blame for the economic crisis as quickly as possible away from big business and firmly at government, where it always belongs. This is why Teabag anger is never directed at the banks who depth-charged the economy, but always at government in general and Obama in particular - Rupert wants his money's worth! It simply would not help in the re-writing of history if a massive scandal of this proportion, indicating massive fraud and embezzlement by Rupert's corporate friends, interrupted the Teabag concentration which needs to be unceasingly focused on government...
#2 Posted by Jon , CJR on Sat 9 Oct 2010 at 07:28 AM
Scandal ??
If there was sucjh a BIG scandal ...you would think the author and the NY Times would tell us what the scandal is ????
Can anyone tell me what the scandal is ???
These types of articles will cause more people to stop paying their mortgages !!
What ever happened to a handshake = a contract????
Americans have lost it's values!!
#3 Posted by Peter, CJR on Sat 9 Oct 2010 at 08:21 AM
Ryan Chittum,
For your consideration as well, look at the WikiLeaks "scoop" this year. Why didn't the NYT or another established paper bring us that raw footage and leaked Afghan-related papers? I suspect investors in these other institutions have decided to focus more on LBO ("private equity") deals, marketing, and "not rocking the boat" than uncovering/presenting controversial stories.
#4 Posted by wunsacon, CJR on Sat 9 Oct 2010 at 10:59 AM
Murdoch and the WSJ's main goal here is to not disrupt the fictitious narrative (being flogged by Murdoch's other, more lowbrow media outlets) that the financial crisis was caused by left-wing pressure on quasi-governmental institutions to increase home ownership among minorities. Once the short-term fruits of that effort have been achieved--presumably in early November--reporting will increase at the WSJ, and the WSJ editorial page will be blasting away at the 'government' for attacking the big banks and letting "little people get away with fraud on an epic scale."
#5 Posted by Pelle Schultz, CJR on Sat 9 Oct 2010 at 12:20 PM
You have to understand Yves Smith and Naked Capitalism have an agenda – they want to crucify the banks, blame banks for EVERYTHING, will not concede whatsoever the role of individual greed and stupidity in running up the housing bubble - and are its readers are constantly posting their desire for a massive ‘debt jubilee.’ There is a lot of good info there, but they are way over the top on this issue.
#6 Posted by thomas paine , CJR on Sat 9 Oct 2010 at 12:49 PM
Big scandal? Well, sort of. Actually just another rock turned over on the entire criminal finance industry pile of similar rocks. No rational person is encouraging folk who signed contracts to renege. This is not the point. The point is, we are, at least in theory, a nation of laws. When the laws, such as presenting the note on a mortgage by way of proof of ownership, is institutionally disregarded, rule of law has clearly broken down. The point is simply to require financial entities to demonstrate ownership, which they have failed to do in their zeal to create mountains of supposed assets for bond (derivative) content. We Americans failed to pay attention and are going to be paying the price for an inordinately long time. Bellowing partisan bulls**t, from either side, is not only immature and irresponsible, it's ineffective in curing the crisis.
#7 Posted by Mary Stromquist, CJR on Sat 9 Oct 2010 at 01:01 PM
Thomas, the banks don't deserve crucifixion. That is reserved for the good. They just deserve hell.
Peter, the scandal is Foreclosuregate. The sooner you get used to that term the better it will be for you to understand. I hope you read this: http://hubpages.com/hub/Foreclosuregate-Sue-Judges-Who-Allow-Fake-Foreclosures
Bottom line, if you don't own the note you cannot foreclose. Say the lender no longer exists. The investment banksters, in order to conceal the bad mortgage from the investors, never transfered the note to the MBS trustee. Well guess what Peter and "Thomas", there is no way to reconstruct the law according to UCC law. So, there is no note. People can squat in their houses forever, because no one can evict them. If the lender still exists, then still the paper will have to go back to the original lender and that lender will have to foreclose.
This is truly the last piece of the puzzle exposing the criminal behavior of the banksters. They are a blight and a curse, since you speak in biblical terms, upon this nation.
#8 Posted by Gary Anderson, CJR on Mon 11 Oct 2010 at 12:54 AM
Clarification: There is no way to reconstruct the law should read: there is no way to reconstruct the note.
#9 Posted by Gary Anderson, CJR on Mon 11 Oct 2010 at 01:01 AM
Peter:
Does your admirable sense of honor extend to not lying in affidavits and court proceedings?
#10 Posted by garhighway, CJR on Mon 11 Oct 2010 at 01:22 PM
wow. What has happened to CJR? Just another partisan rag. This is no "scandal." it's news certainly. This is just another political tool for one side of the aisle (in this case left) to use against the right. These foreclosed homes are still under foreclosure; the people in the still can't pay. And this "scandal" is actually now a delay for all of us (incl. those folks being booted) in getting the crisis behind us. Anyway, seems like the CJR crisis will continue as long as the snarks have taken over.
#11 Posted by Tbh, CJR on Fri 15 Oct 2010 at 06:58 AM
It was rather interesting for me to read the article. Thank you for it. I like such themes and anything connected to this matter. I definitely want to read more soon.
Katty Meetington
indian escorts in las vegas
#12 Posted by Katty Meetington, CJR on Tue 4 Jan 2011 at 04:11 PM