Business & Media Institute Director Dan Gainor appeared on the Fox Business Network December 6 to discuss how the media is choosing sides in the subprime housing problem.
"All throughout this whole year and actually if you go back in the last year and before [the media] have been pointing out that the lenders are the bad guys...CBS News who actually did an okay report last night, then the example they use is someone who has a 6.6% adjustable rate adjusting up to 9.6%, they've got a house the size of a mansion and they've got horses."
Gainor said the important thing that journalists fail to do is to get both the lenders and the home buyer's viewpoints.
In the special report "Debt: Who'$ Responsible?," the Business & Media Institute and Culture and Media Institute pointed out that the media consistently blames business while ignoring the role of personal responsibility.
BMI and CMI examined 156 stories and found that ABC, CBS and NBC overwhelmingly blamed business for "luring" consumers into making bad decisions. At the same time, the three networks ignored personal responsibility and portrayed borrowers as helpless victims who had no hand in their own financial failures.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
We're a village, of course
December 6, 2007 - 18:56 ET by ThisnThatAs all good socialists and communists know, there is no personal responsibility.
First: take away the personal responsibility.
Second: Give everyone just enough so that they are dependent on someone else.
Finally, exercise your power through threats and control of resources.
The MSM has been trying to perform this first step for years. People like Clinton and the Dims have been advocating the second step, very strongly here recently. And they are watching their hero, Chevez, stumble through the 3rd step, trying to learn from his mistakes.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
As all good capitalists
December 6, 2007 - 19:06 ET by crsheddAs all good capitalists know, there is no corporate responsibility.
First: make loans to absolutly anybody who applies.
Second: when those losers begin to default, cry presonal responsiblilty, 'they should have known better'.
Finally, have the government bail your corporation out, to protect the people (shareholders) of course.
" First: make loans to
December 7, 2007 - 00:03 ET by robert108"
First: make loans to absolutly anybody who applies.
Bad management, not the free enterprise system; more a characteristic of "doo-gooder" socialists.
Second: when those losers begin to default, cry presonal responsiblilty, 'they should have known better'.
Unless you held a gun to their head, they are. Who better to know what they can and can't afford? Again, more like "pass the buck" socialism.
Finally, have the government bail your corporation out, to protect the people (shareholders) of course.
Pure socialism. In the free enterprise system, those who make bad decisions go out of business. This sounds like socialism, not the free enterprise system.
"
Nice try.
This AM on "Today" Matt
December 6, 2007 - 19:20 ET by motherbeltThis AM on "Today" Matt Lauer brought up the "other side", namely the "Mumia is innocent" crowd, to Maureen Faulkner, whose husband Mumia Abu-Jamal killed in cold blood.
But for the mortgage "crisis," doing only one side of the story is just fine.
What's wrong with this picture?
I think Maureen should
December 6, 2007 - 19:26 ET by bassndudeI think Maureen should brush up on her self defense skills and next time she is asked that question, answer it with a good right cross.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
I said Lauer should be
December 6, 2007 - 19:30 ET by motherbeltI said Lauer should be ashamed of himself.
For the mortgage story, heaven forbid they should go ask one of the foreclosed homeowners if he ever thought about the consequences of taking out a mortgage he couldn't afford. That would be "blaming the victim" wouldn't it?
Those poor helpless mortgage brokers!
December 6, 2007 - 21:21 ET by Agent W.H.Y.What a bunch of crybabies! First you right-wingnuts pledge all to
the corporate teet, then when they [the corporate banking industry]
screw things up for themselves, you blame the consumer! Classic!
Uh,
nobody would have lied on their 'liars loans' if they weren't
encouraged to do so by the lenders themselves, If the banks wanted to
loan to folks who could really qualify, they would have done so. But
they didn't, because they are gready. And everyone knows that two of
the things that empower righties is greed and fear.
First they
gave us the S&L bailout, now the mortgage bailout, I can't wait for
the next one, which will probably be the insurance bailout. That's
right, wingnuts, no welfare except for the corporations!
Just asking
December 7, 2007 - 08:46 ET by Pete Wilson"If the banks wanted to loan to folks who could really qualify, they would have done so. But they didn't, because they are gready."
Could it not be said that the borrowers were "gready", also?
When my wife and I acquired our house, we were concerned about whether or not we be able to meet our obligations under that mortgage at all times. We bought the size house we could afford. We would have liked a larger abode, but this is what we could afford.
Tell me now, why should those borrowers who obligated themselves to larger mortgages than they could afford, after the initial "teaser" rate expired, be subsidized by those of us who did not. We agreed to and met our obligations, why should be rules be different for those "gready" borrowers?
If these mortgages are to be amended by force, what of other legally constructed agreements or contracts? Are they to be amended by force in the event that one party or the other failed to meet their obligations under those contracts? If I buy a car, finance it, and fail to pay the payments because I could no longer afford it, should the financing party be required to amend that contract by force, in order for me to have that vehicle? Should the lender be forced not to repossess that vehicle?
If not, why then should a lender be forced not to foreclose on a mortgage legally constructed and agreed to by the lender and the borrower?
Just asking...
As opposed to
December 7, 2007 - 10:18 ET by kdizzydazeI don't know about you, but whenever I buy anything that requires a loan (house, car, boat, home improvement loan) - I want to find out what the payments will be - for the entire length of the loan. Any, and I mean any moron that gets a home loan, needs to read the fine print. There is a reason we have fixed rate loans.
As for the bailouts, if you are listening to anybody other than your libtard drethers, you would hear numerous rightwingers (like me) proclaiming what a HORRENDOUS MOVE the mortgage bailout would be.
FYI, most of the people I know who would need the bailing out are liberals. Most of the people I know upset about the possible bailout are also upset because while they were responsible with their borrowing, the irresponsible (liberals, for the most part) are possibly getting a pass. Yeah, that's right, the majority of my friends who are pissed are Republicans who borrow responsibly and PAY BACK THEIR LOANS.
As for the Insurance bailout, that will never happen if Billary gets elected. Isn't it "free healthcare" we are all supposed to recieve?
Liberals - treasonous pigs that they are. They sicken me.
Greed and Fear
December 7, 2007 - 10:53 ET by EllisWyatt"And everyone knows that two of the things that empower righties is greed and fear."
This from the people who use fear and guilt to pass ever more restrictive measures to fight the mythical man-made global warming.
If you're not outraged at the media, you haven't been paying attention.
Not to mention that real
December 7, 2007 - 11:57 ET by robert108Not to mention that real greed is expecting others to pay for what you want. We know who does that.
enough blame to go around
December 7, 2007 - 10:54 ET by bluefeetbrewsGood commentary so far, but it doesn't help to blame only one party... Consumers should have a handle on their debt capacity. Generally speaking, morgage brokers loaned funds to subprime applicants because mutual fund managers would step in and buy these bundled loans without adequately underwriting the risk. The gov't is stepping in not to help out the consumer but to prevent huge losses in your 401(k). Nonetheless, relatively few people have had to suffer the concequences for their oversights.