Jul262016
Industry insider fosters false hope for boomerang buyer surge
2015 was touted as the year of the boomerang buyer. Lenders and realtors prepared, and the financial media wrote the invitations, but the boomerang buyers failed to arrive.
Many people criticize the financial media for running negative stories that “talk down the market,” but realistically, the financial media doesn’t have the power to move markets, and when they report an uncomfortable truth without the sugary spin, some people complain. When it comes to financial news, people only want to read good news, news that reinforces their belief in the correctness of their investments and reaffirms their faith in lifelong financial prosperity. Thus we have an entire branch of media that only presents good news. Any news that isn’t positive must be spun and interpreted in a way that provides comfort to readers. Personally, I prefer the truth.
The financial media periodically runs stories about the return of boomerang buyers, those who lost their homes in foreclosure but bought again. From the beginning I flatly stated this group would not participate in the housing recovery, and they would not be a significant source of demand. In the most complete study conducted on the behavior of boomerang buyers, the authors concluded that “Only about 10% of borrowers with a prior serious delinquency regain access to the mortgage market within 10 years of their default.”
So why did so many analysts think it would be different after the housing bust? Mostly it was spurious hope and wishful thinking.
The housing bust devastated ordinary people. Despite the pain and hardship, most housing analysts believed these dispossessed former owners would desire homeownership and dutifully make payments if given the chance. While such stories of American redemption are noble and appeal to our collective sense of pride, it ignores some inconvenient facts of human behavior.
First, people who experience the trauma of losing their homes in foreclosure aren’t eager to try again: once bitten, twice shy. For many people the American Dream turned out to be a nightmare, and they simply don’t want to risk the pain of loss again. Can you fault them for feeling this way?
Second, many people who became homeowners during the 00s learned very bad financial management habits; many were Ponzis. Many people who bought homes did so with no money down, so they never mastered the financial discipline of saving—an essential prerequisite to maintaining home ownership.
Further, many also learned to borrow and spend the appreciation from their homes and manage personal Ponzi schemes. Not just did this group fail to develop the discipline of saving, they actually learned how to create an irresponsible empire of debt to live well beyond their means. They secured debt against their homes, which they ultimately lost because of this unwieldy debt.
Given the poor financial management skills of many who lost their homes in foreclosure, it shouldn’t be too surprising this group didn’t prepare themselves properly to buy again. The entire boomerang buyer myth presupposes that a group of irresponsible Ponzis suddenly acquired the discipline of saving, rebuilt their credit scores, and put themselves in a position to buy again. This further assumes this group desired homeownership again — which many didn’t.
During the housing bust millions of people lost their homes, more than one million alone in California. With the nine million people who lost their homes, it would take 900,000 boomerang buyers just to get up to the 10% level observed in the federal reserve study. Since saving for a down payment takes time, most boomerang buyers will use FHA financing.
So how many FHA buyers had previous foreclosures? Lenders originated just 2,162 FHA mortgages in the year through September 2014 for buyers with a previous foreclosure, according to the FHA. That was up slightly from 1,808 in the same period in 2013. So in a nine-month period in 2013, only 1,808 boomerang buyers purchased using FHA financing, and in 2014 during the same nine-month period, only 2,162 boomerang buyers materialized. It certainly doesn’t look like we will reach the 900,000 level any time soon.
This is proof the boomerang buyer meme is dead and should be buried.
These boomerang buyer reports all have one thing in common: they discuss how many could buy homes without ever discussing how many actually do buy homes. Most of these articles also loudly proclaim that boomerang buyers are back, but they never provide any evidence of their return, proving these stories are merely hopes and dreams rather than reporting solid facts.
Realistically, many (probably most) of these buyers will never return. Many were never qualified for homeownership to begin with, added only when credit standards evaporated. Continuing to exclude those who can’t sustain homeownership is necessary and appropriate. Many more won’t even try because the credit and down payment barriers are too difficult to surmount—and toxic financing won’t cure that problem in this cycle (or hopefully ever).
On the rebound: Get ready for the 2018 surge of homebuyers
July 22, 2016, Sue Woodard
‘Rebound’ might not be a good thing when referring to a dating situation, but it’s not a bad thing at all when we’re talking about housing.
In fact, there are a lot of people ‘on the rebound’ that mortgage loan officers and their Realtor partners should be courting.
Online information and marketplace RealtyTrac estimates that more than seven million Americans lost their homes during the Great Recession. Depending on circumstances and taking into account that people generally have a two to seven year waiting period to repair credit and restore their eligibility to get a loan, the home-buying pool is about to get even more crowded.
People are coming back in position to buy homes on a regular basis, but a peak is expected in 2018 when a surge of 1.5-million consumers become able to buy homes again.
Mortgage Loan Officers and Realtors need to get ready and get them ready! …
This author clearly embraces the boomerang buyer fantasy, but like everyone else who writes about this topic, she lacks any hard data to support her claim that these buyers will actually come back to the market.
Here are some things MLOs and Realtors need to keep in mind and communicate to prepare for this “new group” entering the market above and beyond the normal flow of buying and selling:
Reaching out to renters:
Lack of housing inventory – particularly in the first-time home buyer price range – has been making news all over the country, increasing competition for properties, creating multiple offer situations and lengthening the time it takes to find and close on a home. A big infusion of rebound buyers could intensify these conditions, so marketing should focus on the importance of making a plan, how soon they need to get started and the reality of timelines for qualifying, searching for and closing in competitive market conditions.
No need to worry about the sudden infusion of entry-level buyers. It simply won’t happen.
Hailing homeowners:
An influx of home buyers is a great reason to connect with current homeowners and past clients about equity position, area appreciation and goals for the next one to five years. Outreach to homeowners should tap into curiosity and get their imaginations going about moving up, moving on, buying a vacation or second home. Focus on the importance of needing to be ready for the “buyer surge of 2018” so their homes can be top contenders when they hit the market. …
In other words, we can reignite the manic behavior and foolishness of the housing bubble.
I can’t fault people for their optimism. I told people 10 years ago that the housing bust would crush homebuilding and put the economy into a tailspin that would take a decade to recover from. The message was so disheartening that nobody wanted to believe it. Denial was far more comforting that truth or accuracy 10 years ago, which is why Cassandras are never popular.
Everyone in the real estate industry wants to believe in a return to the “good ol’ days,” but realistically, we will never again witness the kind of market activity and short-term prosperity the real estate market enjoyed during the housing mania.
[listing mls=”OC16161726″]
Rams training camp to open Tuesday with rookies reporting to UC Irvine
It’s still hard to believe this is really happening
It’s back-to-school time for the Rams’ rookies, and the syllabus appears rather daunting.
Just a few months after most of them left college, the Rams’ 27 rookies will move into UC Irvine campus housing Tuesday, then hit the field Wednesday for the first of their two practices before veterans arrive.
The big man on campus, naturally, will be quarterback Jared Goff, who made his name at another University of California school, the flagship in Berkeley. Goff, the No. 1 overall pick in April’s NFL draft, has a secure roster spot but will attempt to win the starting job during camp.
The Rams last camped at UC Irvine in August 1994. Two months later, Goff was born, and in April 1995, the team moved to St. Louis. Now, 22 years later, the Rams have returned for five weeks of practice.
The rookies check in Tuesday and get a two-day head start on the veterans, who arrive Thursday in advance of the first full-team workout on Saturday. The youngsters will need to utilize every practice in order to show coaches they deserve to deserve a spot on the 53-man roster in early September.
Many of the rookies – six draft picks and 21 undrafted free agents – won’t survive the Aug. 30 first round of cuts, which will take the roster from 90 players to 75. Another 18 cuts will come Sept. 3, but that’s when the Rams can establish a 10-player practice squad and keep alive the NFL dreams of some rookies.
The vetting process already has begun. Most of these rookies were on the field in Oxnard, in May for a mini-camp and in June for full-team optional workouts. Some stood out while others made little impact.
The most intriguing battles might be at receiver and tight end, positions critical to Goff’s development.
Only five or six receivers are likely to be on the roster, and fourth-round pick Pharoh Cooper, a standout in OTA practices, looks like a good bet to earn a spot with veterans Tavon Austin and Kenny Britt.
That leaves two spots, and the question of whether returning receivers such as Brian Quick and Bradley Marquez can hold off rookies such as sixth-round pick Mike Thomas and undrafted free agents Marquez North, Nelson Spruce, Duke Williams and Paul McRoberts.
Some of these practices are open to the public. I might have to check it out.
I just hope they aren’t terrible.
Karl Case, Economist Who Developed Home Price Index, Dies at 69
Karl E. Case, an economics professor at Wellesley College who helped revolutionize how home prices are tracked by real estate professionals and home buyers alike, died on July 15 in Wellesley, Mass. He was 69.
Mr. Case had Parkinson’s disease and multiple myeloma and died in a hospice near his home, his wife, Susan, said.
While the daily ups and downs of prices for stocks and bonds have long been easy to obtain and analyze, the housing market was much more opaque when Mr. Case teamed up in the 1980s with a Yale economist, Robert Shiller, to develop an economic model to track home values.
The two collected information like the price of the same property over time as it changed hands, and tweaked the data to account for reliability and other quirks. This created what has become the benchmark for gauging the value of the single biggest investment most Americans own: their home.
The Case-Shiller Index charted the remarkable rise of housing prices in the bubble that preceded the Great Recession, its subsequent bursting, the sharp declines in 2008 and 2009, and the slow but steady recovery in the real estate market since then.
Both men warned before the recession that the housing market was getting ahead of itself. Mr. Case presciently sounded the alarm about the danger posed by rising subprime borrowing in the decade before the financial crisis.
“He was more connected to the business world than most academics,” Mr. Shiller said in an interview. “He also talked to people in the real world, like home appraisers, in order to isolate data for housing prices, which wasn’t easy.”
el O owes this man a debt of gratitude for creating his favorite home price index.
Gov. Brown foregoes green law to build more housing
Governor Brown recently proposed a plan allowing development projects meeting certain parameters to obtain permits without waiting for environmental reviews and other lengthy revision processes to clear.
Urban infill projects qualify for the governor’s plan and waiver of environmental review when they:
comply with existing general zoning plans on land previously zoned for high-density residential construction;
neighbor public transit systems; and
reserve 5-20% of units for low-income residents, depending on proximity to transit systems.
The proposal targets limitations set forth by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a notorious law beloved by not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) protesters. NIMBYs often use the CEQA to significantly delay, or worse, stop projects they find personally unsavory — whether or not an environmental offense is truly in question.
Brown’s plan to simplify and expedite developer’s permits helps solve a problem developers and other building and rezoning activists have struggled with for years – local opposition to developments which ease the strain of overcrowding in California’s housing markets.
However, NIMBYs aren’t about to let go of their old reliable kiss-of-death tactic. Already, many are up in arms over the allegedly drastic side effects of the governor’s plan to get more housing now.
A new approach to the environmental stymie
Contrary to popular belief, the governor’s proposal holds few sinister ramifications for the environment. The proposal targets land which has already been zoned for high-density development. Thus, the environmental effects of building on the land has been previously assessed and determined a nonissue.
Additionally, building in an already urban area – near transit systems – creates less environmental change than outward expansion into open regions. The construction likely to result from the governor’s proposal will increase density in existing cities — a necessity for mass transit — rather than reap and develop previously untouched land on the peripheries of communities.
In fact, environmentalists have little to complain about. More than half of California’s land is controlled by governmental factions as public land used mainly for energy, conservation, recreation and necessary establishments like schools.
Governor Brown’s proposal is part of the housing solution California desperately needs. Increased urban density by infill construction can only help supply the demand that has pushed home prices beyond renters’ and buyers’ stagnant incomes. When supply approaches balance with demand, rents and home prices stabilize. Buyers are able to save and enhance their finances to take out mortgages and purchase homes.
Urban density buildup also limits the adverse side effects of low supply, like heavy traffic. More centralized density means fewer commuters from the suburbs and more residents able to take advantage of intracity public transit, which reduces the need for subsidies and parking facilities. It also means more economic stability, as businesses no longer need to fight or flee to keep their employees — and, in turn, their profits, to remain viable and part of the community.
Of course, real estate agents and their brokers benefit from urban density, too. Greater density means more homebuyers are able to stay in the city, and prices will eventually drop to manageable levels as city councils permit construction to pick up — allowing still more homebuyers back into the market.
What struck me when I lived in Germany, was how few cars there were on the road. Public transit was so convenient that no one wanted to bother with a car (not to mention high das Benzin prices). The town I lived in has mostly 5 story apartment buildings. Every few blocks, they have a light-rail track that winds through the town to a main intercity train station.
I’m not sure if the transportation system was designed to meet the density or the density increased because of the transportation. Either way, the trains were packed in the morning commute, and ran every 5 minutes, plus or minus a few seconds.
If Governor Brown is going to push high-density housing, he needs to also increase high-density commuting options.
Transportation development should match increases in use. Realistically, there are very few places in Southern California where your commuting options include something other than your car. We’re past the limit in many areas due to insufficient traffic infrastructure.
Why Building More Homes Won’t Help Housing Affordability
Certain old saws that fuel the predictions of economic pundits should periodically be tested to determine if they maintain their predictive accuracy. Three such the old school rules that are heavily relied upon to predict and explain housing economics are the following:
1. When employment is high people buy homes
2. When interest rates are low people buy homes
3. When rent inflation is high people buy homes
Shelter is a product that millions of Americans will purchase each year, but what economic factors cause growth or decline in the purchase of this product? If high employment, low interest rates and high rent inflation, three factors that are present in today’s economy, stimulate the purchase of this product, then why has the level of growth in mortgage home sales this 8 year economic cycle disappointed many housing pundits and experts?
I give them (minor) credit that they no longer blame tight lending. That completely unsupported thesis has finally succumbed to a slow and painful death. The new “stalking horse” that has replaced tight lending as the favorite unsupported thesis to explain the low sales numbers, is tight inventory. According to the “experts” we simply don’t have enough homes to address the high demand.
In a previous article “Low Housing Inventory Lie Still Lives On”
Low Housing Inventory Lie Still Lives On
I discuss and document with data, that existing home sales inventory ( annual months) was slightly higher in 2012-2016, the period of supposed low inventory, than in the period of 1999-2005, when housing sales were exploding. In other words, if it is low inventory that is preventing growth in sales, why are sales lower in a time when inventory is higher than it was when sale were higher?
One of the problems with buying into the low inventory thesis is that what follows from this is the assumption that if builders build more homes, we should see purchases increase. And because supply has increased, home prices should be more affordable.
The obvious problem with this thesis is that builders are not building starter homes. For the past four decades, in fact, builders are building bigger and bigger homes and flooding the market with higher prices homes for the wealthy. This will not do anything to make homes more affordable for the rest everyone else.
If you need proof of this, look behind you. We already ran this experiment. Did the ramp-up in home building from 1994-2007, especially the massive over building from 2002-2006, make housing cheaper?
“I give them (minor) credit that they no longer blame tight lending. That completely unsupported thesis has finally succumbed to a slow and painful death.”
Um, this meme is far from dead. It is very much alive. Talk to Jeb Hensarling lately?
Memes in politics have their own life because they need only be supported by ideology rather than facts.
According to IR and el O, building up will solve this. Just look at San Francisco and New York.. two of the lowest priced markets in the country.
Absolutely, building up will solve; ie.,
Total land area; square miles…
SF: 49.9
NYC/Manhattan: 22.82
OC: 791
Regards,
el O
Why Dense Development Makes the Housing Crisis Worse
In “Building Cities For People,” author Joel Kotkin, a former San Franciscan turned urban studies fellow at Chapman, argues that increasing building density actually makes the housing crisis worse, and also makes San Francisco less likely to attract and retain anyone except the super-rich.
Kotkin contradicts the common supply-side argument that a modern metropolis can only drive down housing prices (and retain populations of working and middle class families) by building more, thus reducing scarcity and bringing supply in line with demand. That sort of thinking only makes sense to a point, he says.
“Once I started talking to developers, they pointed out that once your building gets higher than four stories, your price goes through the roof,“ Kotkin says. “That has to do with seismic safety, the switch from wood to steel frames, bigger crews of union labor, lots of things.”
In San Francisco, it also means a much longer planning and approval process. The result, Kotkin argues, is that the only way big buildings can be commercially attractive to those building them is by catering to the rich. The “pack and stack” method of approving bigger and bigger development in an attempt to relieve the housing shortage only pushes prices higher, because builders want a return on those huge investments.
“In San Francisco, townhome building can cost more than double that of detached buildings. Units in condominium can cost as much as 7.5 times” to build, according to “Cities for People.”
“It surprised me too,” Kotkin says, since it flies in the face of basic assumptions about supply and demand. But it does explain a few things, like why the world’s biggest cities have been unable to build their way out of soaring home prices. Kotkin cites East Asian cities such as Singapore — so dense that it’s a miracle light can escape its borders — as the ultimate case study. There, housing prices only come down when government steps in and converts buildings to public housing.
http://www.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2016/01/11/why-dense-development-might-make-the-housing-crisis-worse
Thanks. I may use that for a post.
I think his argument on cost is silly. The developer can sell for whatever the market will bear. If the cost to produce a unit is less than the cost of production, then the developer will build. Apparently, even with very high construction costs, developers can still make money, so they want to build these projects.
He makes the argument that providing more units failed to bring costs down in some major cities, therefore, we shouldn’t provide any more units. This is silly.
Urban construction meets the need at the time it’s produced. The developer wasn’t trying to produce too much product and drive the price down. The new product prevented prices from moving up too far too fast.
Realistically, we will never have cheap housing in California, but if we built a lot more of it, we would reduce the growth rate in housing costs. Over time reducing the rate of growth of housing costs will benefit everyone.
Where have all the foreclosures gone?
Can-kicking bad loans works
It’s not news that foreclosures are declining as the housing market and economy recover. But data provider Black Knight Financial Services reported Tuesday that first-time foreclosure starts were the lowest not just since the housing bubble burst, but since 2000.
There were 77,657 such starts in the second quarter, Black Knight said. That’s a 16% decline from the first quarter and 25% lower than the same period a year ago.
Repeat foreclosures are also falling rapidly: there were 114,620 in the second quarter, down 17% from the first quarter and 8% compared to a year ago, but still more than double the level they averaged from 2000 to 2005.
It’s worth remembering that foreclosures aren’t just a creature of the crisis. In the oil states of Alaska and North Dakota, “non-current” rates (defined as delinquencies and foreclosures, combined) have jumped by double digits over the past six months.
While it’s good news for homeowners and the economy that the national trends are down, most analysts believe post-crisis lending has been too strict. Many believe it’s worth taking some more risk to boost homeownership and stimulate the economy.
“…most analysts believe post-crisis lending has been too strict. Many believe it’s worth taking some more risk to boost homeownership and stimulate the economy.”
Who are these “analysts”? Can you name one or two? Can you identify what their arguments are as to why lending is too strict? Can you tell me what they think should be done differently? Can you identify the specific underwriting standards that are too strict, and tell me how much looser they should be?
The analysts are industry shills who simply want looser lending standards to close more deals and make more money. Lending is too strict because it’s impeding their ability to make money. Lenders should eliminate any barriers to generating a real estate commission, and any underwriting standard that inhibits sales should be relaxed or eliminated. The regulations must be loosened until no transaction fails due to loan qualification standards.
That’s what they really want.
Seems like we tried that before, but it can’t hurt to ask, right?
US new-home sales climbed in June to more than 8-year high
WASHINGTON (AP) — Americans bought new homes in June at the fastest pace in more than eight years, a sign that a solid job market and low mortgage rates are bolstering the broader U.S. economy.
The Commerce Department said Tuesday that new-home sales rose 3.5 percent last month to a seasonally adjusted rate of 592,000, the best level since February 2008. Purchases of new homes have climbed 10.1 percent year-to-date, despite volatile sales on a monthly basis.
Low mortgage rates and a healthy job market have lifted the real estate market, which continues to recover from the depths of the housing bust that began nearly a decade ago. Greater demand and tight inventories have led to rising prices, such that the potential to return to the historic sales rate of 650,000 new homes could be limited. Builders say they’re struggling to find both workers and land for additional construction.
June’s median sales price rose 6.1 percent from a year ago to $306,700. Just 4.9 months’ supply of new homes is listed for sale, well below this historic average of six months. Sales surged in the West and Midwest by more than 10 percent in June, but declined in the Northeast and South.
The market for new houses is roughly just a tenth of the size of the existing-home market, where sales are also rising even as the number of listings are shrinking on a yearly basis. The National Association of Realtors said last week that sales of existing homes rose 1.1 percent in June to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 5.57 million, the best performance since February 2007. But the number of listings has fallen 5.8 percent from a year ago to 2.12 million.
Builders remain relatively confident that they’ll continue to expand, although their optimism waned slightly in July.
The National Association of Home Builders/Wells Fargo builder sentiment index dropped one point to 59. Readings above 50 indicate more builders view sales conditions as good, rather than poor. The index had mostly held at 58 this year before rising to 60 in June.
Builders’ view of current sales and traffic by prospective buyers slipped one point this month. Their outlook for sales over the next six months slid three points.
Construction of single-family houses has increased, rising 4.4 percent to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 778,000 in June.
Propelling much of this demand has been an improving job market coupled with cheaper borrowing costs.
The unemployment rate is a solid 4.9 percent. Employers added 287,000 workers in June, a strong rebound after the pace of hiring slipped in April and May.
Wow. This is not the Elizabeth Warren that I used to know
Long piece but a worthy read
I was introduced to Warren over a decade ago when I read Two-Income Trap. It’s been a long time, but what I remember is an accurate depiction of the problems families face. However, I remember cringing at her solutions – more of the same, ever increasing taxes on the evil rich to help alleviate middle class struggles.
Anybody that has tried to adopt Trump’s tactics has gone down in flames. I expect the same will happen with Warren. Seeing her sell out in front of the Democratic convention and hearing her supporters chant “We trusted you” before being shushed by others was a priceless moment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GHg3GAeQ1Y
Elizabeth Warren in 2004 talking about her book the “Two Income Trap.” Just watch the last two minutes for relevance. She is discussing Hillary Clinton but it would appear it now applies to her as well.
You would have to lower yourself to his common denominator, and it’s not a pretty place. Trump will just go lower. Booker gets it:
Cory Booker to Trump: ‘I love you, Donald. I pray for you.’
https://www.yahoo.com/news/cory-booker-love-donald-trump-000000278.html
Facebook’s Answer to Silicon Valley Housing Crunch: Build Apartments
Concerns about Silicon Valley’s housing shortage are turning the world’s leading social media company into an apartment developer.
Fast-growing Facebook Inc. is in the midst of a push to expand its headquarters complex in its hometown of Menlo Park, Calif., a plan for 6,500 new employees that has rankled some locals frustrated with crowding.
So in an effort to shore up city support, Facebook earlier this month made an unusual pledge for a tech company. It would build at least 1,500 units of housing, meant not specifically for Facebook employees, but for the general public.
The novel move is a gesture intended to address a growing frustration in the region: too many workers, too few homes.
“There is a lack of housing in the area,” said John Tenanes, Facebook’s head of real estate. “The intent here is to make an impact … it’s to try something new and something bold and to try to make a difference.”
Under the plan, 15% of the units would be reserved for low- or middle-income families, and the company is offering numerous other benefits for the city, including millions of dollars to study and improve transportation. It is unclear whether Facebook or a third party would develop the buildings, which are located on a site that is currently a set of industrial buildings owned by Facebook. The timing, too, is uncertain.
Other tech giants are likely watching closely. Google Inc. has voiced support for allowing housing on numerous sites it owns in its hometown of Mountain View, Calif., though it has no detailed plans for those sites.
By all accounts, the imbalance of extraordinary job creation and severe housing shortages in Silicon Valley and San Francisco to the north is only poised to grow in coming years.
Facebook’s head of real estate.
———-
LMAO!
.
By all accounts, the imbalance of extraordinary job creation and severe housing shortages in Silicon Valley and San Francisco to the north is only poised to grow in coming years.
—–
Really? All accounts? I guess this author wasn’t around for the last two recessions? The Bay Area is one of the most boom-and-bust parts of the country. Just 15 years ago there was an office vacancy “crisis” and rents were falling. Rents fell 5 years ago too. People have no sense of history.
Any place that’s so expensive to live is bound to become a ghost town when things go bad. The high cost of living (housing mostly), is not sustainable when the demand doesn’t greatly exceed supply.
Facebook is blathering nonsense. There is no shortage of housing in silicon valley. There is however a shortage of “affordable” housing.
Everywhere you drive around the peninsula and east bay there are numerous new high density apartments and luxury homes.
The only thing to grow dramatically in 2017 is the unemployment rate and vacancy rate.
“Thus we have an entire branch of media that only presents good news. Any news that isn’t positive must be spun and interpreted in a way that provides comfort to readers. Personally, I prefer the truth.”
Journalists have to walk a fine line between truth telling and business. If good news sells, news will be slanted that direction. If murder and mayhem sells, news will be slanted to cover this.
I distinguish “journalists” from “broadcast news.” Both are in the “media.” Journalists write in-depth well-considered well-researched stories and value their integrity. Broadcast news folks report inflammatory soundbites and manufacture their own worthless “debates” on topics for the sole purpose of attracting eyeballs with the buffoonery.
e.g. Compare some of the article written on ESPN.com (FiveThirtyEight) with the televised broadcast news programs (First Take).
“news folks who manufacture their own worthless “debates” on topics for the sole purpose of attracting eyeballs with the buffoonery”
———————–
Agreed. THE MOST notable case in point being… ‘The eCONomist’ magazine.
The Economist is great. Sorry you don’t like it.
The death of newspapers is also going to be the death of investigative journalism. I shudder to think about the corruption and graft crooked politicians are getting away with now because we don’t have the media digging in their dirt.
Reminded me of a George Orwell quote:
“Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed. Everything else is public relations.”
PR = shilling 😉
That is so true.
Speaking of FiveThirtyEight and their excellent analysis..
Who will win the presidency?
Chance of winning
Hillary – 45.8%
Donald – 54.2%
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#now
The fact that the electoral vote totals are so close, makes me think they are way off mark. Trump needs about 65% polling to make room for the voter fraud and plus/minus error.
Ah, the “voter fraud” meme. Hadn’t heard that one in awhile. Thanks for the chuckle.
Enjoy!
CBS2 Investigation Uncovers Votes Being Cast From Grave Year After Year
LOS ANGELES (CBSLA.com) — A comparison of records by David Goldstein, investigative reporter for CBS2/KCAL9, has revealed hundreds of so-called dead voters in Southern California, a vast majority of them in Los Angeles County.
Specifically, 265 in Southern California and a vast majority of them, 215, in Los Angeles County alone.
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2016/05/23/cbs2-investigation-uncovers-votes-being-cast-from-grave-year-after-year/
A whole 265 counts of fraud found in SoCal. Is this a real issue?
Aren’t you an attorney? The ethical thing to do is to make sure we have zero voter fraud.
Is absolutely zero voter fraud possible? How much are you willing to spend to achieve this result?
Zero voter fraud should be the goal, not likely possible with the way we currently vote. I can’t answer your question until I know the actual costs to prevent and investigate it.
What if it cost $1 more per registered voter to evaluate fraud? There are 17M registered CA voters. Do you want to spend $17M of taxpayer dollars to eliminate the potential for 265 dead people from voting?
That is a lot of money but chump change compared to what the governments already throws away.
Since I am being honest here and not just trying to prove a point, 17 million is too much. In your scenario, It would be more wise to spend 17 million to come up with a new system which would be fraud proof, not the current way it is done. Currently, ballots touch too many hands and safeguard procedures are not always being followed so it would be a waste to give them 17 million. The new system should also make it easier to change affiliations and such.
Nope! You got a chuckle out of the notion/suggestion of voter fraud. That’s the real issue.
I know. I know. Obama’s a Muslim non-citizen too… Please share more Fox News memes…
Next thing you know, in addition to telling me 265 dead people voting in SoCal when millions voted, you’ll tell me crime is getting worse!
Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Republican National Convention (HBO)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNdkrtfZP8I
Welcome to the Republican Party – feelings are facts. Facts, are not facts.
Crime statistics show a sharp increase since Ferguson, so much so that it has been dubbed “the Ferguson effect”. Facts are stubborn.
Source?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/07/26/halfway-through-2016-homicides-are-up-in-more-than-two-dozen-big-u-s-cities/?utm_term=.0ac78ec0dc41
Is that enough?
Goodness gracious. This is like discussing issues with Trump himself. “Homicides increase in two dozen cities in 2016” means “crime is rampant and only Trump himself can save us.”
My house value is up 10% in 2016! That means its price will double in a few years!
Listen to what Gingrich argues in that John Oliver clip. He admits “facts do not matter. Only what people feel matters.” The majority of commenters here agree! It’s insane.
There is a theory that Trump’s polling numbers are under reported because people aren’t willing to admit they support Trump to others, but would be more than willing to cast their vote for him in the anonymity of a booth.
This may be true but who really knows. Amongst my friends, some are willing to support even as long time democrats. I have poor friends that just don’t vote, educated friends that always vote liberal or conservative. The ones I know that support Trump don’t shy away from it but maybe because they feel “safe” expressing it between us.