How Do We Cover a Financial Crisis?

You ask, "Did U.S NEWS do a good enough job seeing this crisis coming?" The answer is in your own "editors note". You mention one article in 2003 and one in 2006 and extensive coverage since 2007. There were approximatly 150 issues of your magazine from 2003 thru 2006 and you had TWO articles? Wow!! pat yourself on the back.

Is there really a "mortgage crises"?

Aproximatly 75 Million Americans own a home. and appoxamatley 1 million are in forclosure. That means that 299 million people do not have a mortgage problem. The people on wall street have a problem.

What we have is a JOBS CRISES. There are many news reports about the job losses over 400,000 in Michigan alone in recent years. I have been a REALTOR for 14 years. The only reason any of my customers lost their homes is becuase they lost their jobs.

All these reporters and politicians talking about the "UNEMPLOYMENT RATE" what they do not talk about it how that is calculated. I believe the number comes from the unemployment office, which self employed people like Realtors, Contractors,hair dressers,anybody that works for a family owned business is not allowed to collect unemployment.

Once a persons 26 weeks of unemployment runs out they do not count as unemployed anymore. So, the rate goes up, and things are BAD. The rate goes down and things are suppose to be good. But it is not good because, alot of people did not find jobs and the UNDER EMPLOYED are not calculated.

I would really enjoy some INVESTIGATIVE REPORTING.

Right now politicians are saying that the United States is spending around 10 Million a month in IRAQ. There are How many military personnel there? It seems every charitable organization has collection drives for the troops for things like tooth paste, sun screen and toilet paper? what the heck is the 10 million covering. Oh, Bombs. How many of those have been used lately?

Over all I enjoy reading U.S NEWS. I haven't missed a regular issue in 9 years and look forward to the magazine every week.

Carl Bidinger of MI 11:42PM October 22, 2008

I think US News has done a pretty good job covering this situation. I would like to see more facts about who is responsible and what can be done about it. But that would require getting past the media bias, and there are publications who will point fingers no matter which party is to blame. Personally, I think 90% of congress should be fired by the voters. Oversight has two meanings: "I have oversight" is not the same as "That was an oversight". Unfortunately, the Chris Dodds, Barney Franks and Nancy Pelosis of congress espouse the latter and live by the philosophy that it is better to ask forgiveness than permission. This is not to say the Republicans are blameless, but any attempt by Republicans to correct this problem was met with scorn and derision by Democrat leadership, to the point of not allowing legislation to come to the floor for a vote. Even President Clinton was ignored by his own party when he cautioned that trouble was in the offing. President Bush has been ignored throughout his 8 year tenure, but little is ever mentioned about this in the major media.

Unfortunately, most liberal legislators believe the electorate to be too stupid to know what is good for them, (sometimes with ample justification), and it is up to government to take care of them. Americans have always been pretty good at innovation and taking care of themselves and will do so when it is expected of them. Rewarding poor choices only encourages more poor choices. Rewarding bad behavior elicits more bad behavior. Americans aren't stupid, they learn to benefit from the system government gives them to function in. If they are "gaming" the system it is because the reward system is such that it encourages this behavior.

That said, I believe US News has done a better job than its contemporaries in informing its readers about the current crisis. Could they do better? Of course. If hindsight does not indicate an opportunity missed, perfection has been achieved. But relying on one source for information is not a good idea and it is up to the readers to learn what they need to know at all times, not just when dark clouds are on the horizon. If one is not informed, one is more easily duped.

William P. O'Brien of CA 8:44AM October 13, 2008

Actually, you have covered the facts leading up to the crisis quite well and for a lot longer than your remarks suggested. Too often however, the facts were buried within too many glowing opinions masquerading as facts. In the future, it would be nice to see a clearly-labeled financial opinion section along the lines of your pro/con forum. Giving us both sides to an issue is always the best if you can teach your writers the difference between fact and opinion.

Kirby Danielson of MT 2:43PM October 11, 2008

I agree with JJe of CO. Genuine journalism is very nearly dead. The picture of reality that the media gives to American citizens is like the picture of America that the entertainment industry gives to the rest of the world: distorted, innacurate, and grotesque. In a word, untrustworhty. Just as those who visit our country and learn that it is NOTHING like they expected based on the media information they had recieved, so it is that the public must so often go around the press to get at the truth of things, and when they find a story about something they themselves know something about, it is often amazing how inaccurate or wrong the "journalist" is.

Much of what has gone on for the last eight years has been grossly misrepresented and misreported in the media. The media has demonstrated a willingness to go to great lengths to sell thier product with negative sensationalism, and that it consists of too many players scrambling to make names for themselves and advance thier careers: one need only flatter thier interviewer on tape ("that is SUCH an insightful question..") to ascertain that thier voice will be on the evening news. Too often, in the journalistic process, little atempt is made to ascertain that the reporting corresponds to the actual state of affairs in the world in a well-rounded, meaningful way. Were we really to believe that for three years insurgent activity and death tolls were the only newsworthy stories to come out of Iraq? One had to "dig" through numerous sources to get a decent picture of what was really going on, and I have not met a soldier coming back who did not provide a more rounded picture than the media was giving me. What is misnamed "journalism" in this post - Woodward/Bernstein era is rabid with disdain for America - its traditions, its institutions, and especially for its people (it is elitist). The question on many American's minds is this: Is the media coverage of the last eight years going to be the model for the next few years while we as a nation engage in the painful process of digging ourselves out of this economic difficulty? Then heaven help us all. Journalists are not our leaders - much as they may want to be. With few exceptions, they pale in comparison to the men and women that lead America's corporations, institutions, and organizations.They should exercise more humility. The "hard-hitting" thing has got to go now. It will not help us now. Did it ever? (...and afterwards, the journalist gets to edit the tape!) To an American like me asking "show me, don't tell me", I certainly hope they have more to show in the future.

Michael Grey of 12:47AM October 09, 2008