Comments on: The NYT ombudsman’s blogophobia A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 By: Mark Regan Tue, 26 May 2009 22:24:08 +0000 Doesn’t Salmon misstate the point of the “11 paragraphs” he criticizes? Hoyt wasn’t saying that Andrews shouldn’t have been covering his own story; he was saying that Andrews shouldn’t have been covering the foreclosure crisis.

By: BartS Tue, 26 May 2009 19:33:41 +0000 To me, the most interesting part of the whole thing is the circling of the wagons by the MSM. The PBS NewsHour guy responded that he didn’t know about the bankruptcy, and wouldn’t have investigated, because it was just a book story, not an expose, and doggone it, he LIKED Andrews and the wife and kids. (Let me know if George W. Bush’s book tour gets the same reax.)

Andrews is one a member of the club, and if he wants to tell his story, his way, so he can make some $$, everyone else needs to just be quiet.

By: anne Tue, 26 May 2009 16:08:07 +0000 Personally, as someone who lives far outside of the rare air found over NY and D.C., I thought Andrews’ original story was revelatory enough about a family voraciously eager to spend its way into oblivion.

McArdle’s new info about the multiple bankruptcies just confirmed their insanity.

That the mortgage company didn’t care that the borrower had money to repay the loan, however, is also a huge part of the story. Once upon a time, the story would have ended with the loan application.

No book deal would have come from that, however. So perhaps Andrews is lucky in his lack of financial commonsense.

By: Kelli K Tue, 26 May 2009 13:40:52 +0000 Et tu Wall Street Journal? 0454952177.html

McArdle should consider legally changing her name to “A. Blogger @ the Atlantic.”

But then, here is the real showstopper from this throwaway review:

“Mr. Andrews’s book makes it clear that the real culprit is human nature.”

Got that everyone? The mortgage meltdown was caused, not by underregulated, greedy lenders, risk-shifting brokers or pie-eyed sucker-borrowers. No, it was caused by human nature. To think, someone got paid to write that!

By: Nick gogerty Tue, 26 May 2009 11:56:26 +0000 Felix way to mix it up a bit and expose the rather self righteous position of many narrow thinkers in current traditional media. Ironically the most important media during the founding of this country were the Pamphpleteer’s . The most well known being Thomas Paine who would probably have had a stonking blog.

When a media outlets importance or integrity isn’t self evident its protestations to that end may be more indicative of death throes rather than defense.

By: zach Tue, 26 May 2009 11:45:42 +0000 I think this is James Frey level deception. Yet the people that are really being saved by hiding Andrews’s wife’s bankruptcies are the banks. Who the hell extends that much credit to someone over extended and coming up on the 7 year milestone? Sure Andrews is much less of a sympathetic character with the omission, but the banks look completely worthless if they didn’t ferret out that he was married to someone about to default again.
The other entity that comes out looking awful is the Times. They were out reported, original reporting no less, by a mere blogger.

By: scott Tue, 26 May 2009 01:59:52 +0000 I also take exception with saying McArdle is ‘attacking’ Andrews. Megan outlined the facts, such as the bankruptcy, and in Andrews reply to her he doesn’t dispute any of the facts she raised; he does provide some additional color like the intra family lawsuit that led to the 2nd bankruptcy.

“All the news that is fit to print” is on the Times masthead and that wasn’t the case here.

I’d also call out Megan’s closing line after Andrew’s response which is that this is still a story worth telling, even with the wife’s bankruptcy, though it does add some shades of grey.

By: infp Mon, 25 May 2009 18:21:19 +0000 I can’t understand why so many people persist in portraying those who lost money in the real estate correction as victims. Investors were not “sucked into the subprime bubble,” against their will. Rather, they simply invested in the real estate market at the wrong time.

By: Curmudgeon Mon, 25 May 2009 14:10:35 +0000 Felix, I think the broader point (once again the spam word – broad – seems completely ironic) you are making here is that there remains a largely Establishment backlash to the technological and cultural disruption that is the Internet, and more specifically the blogosphere that has grown from it. I can draw a few conclusions from tales such as this:

1. This backlash will die out when those unwilling or unable to adapt to change die out.
2. It will continue to be a messy process.
3. Newspapers are dead. This one requires a few logical steps in between that I will leave as an exercise to the reader. But I will institute a denial of service attack (jj) at the next person who tells me that print will never die because they like the feel of paper in their hands.

By: Adamu Mon, 25 May 2009 03:07:57 +0000 If he didn’t want to embarrass himself or his wife, he shouldn’t have written that piece that was full of WAY too many intimate details of his personal life. It’s amazing he was willing to describe truly uncomfortable moments with his wife, while hiding key details that would change the characterization of the story completely.

In the end, it’s not that surprising that someone would omit information to try and make himself more sympathetic. What’s so insane about this case is that the author tried to deceive the whole NYT audience into believing he’s a victim of the easy-credit culture.

I think you really point out a really baffling anti-blog bias among some of the people involved. If McArdle had simply written a letter to the editor the reaction might have been different, but just because a “blogger” was involved it inspires dimissiveness and denigration.