The double standard used by networks regarding thrift and spending wasn’t the only contradiction. The networks created another regarding lending standards. Business was damned either way. As foreclosures increased, reporters blamed companies for using “lax” standards and lending too much to subprime borrowers. But it wasn’t long before lenders were being attacked for something else – not lending.

     “As housing prices shot up, mortgage companies were lending to people with questionable credit. Now, 900,000 homes are in foreclosure across this country,” said ABC’s David Muir on March 13, 2007, before mentioning that “Federal regulators now want mortgage companies to stiffen lending criteria.”

     CBS’s Anthony Mason presented a similar view on the same evening, mentioning an attorney general who advocated “tougher standards for lenders.” But Mason warned that tighter restrictions on lending could adversely affect the U.S. economy and create a “housing-led recession.”

     Just a few short days later, ABC’s Betsy Stark was worried about recession because of higher credit standards. “Imagine what that means for an economy that runs on credit. We’re all using our credit cards all the time,” said Stark.

     As recently as Aug. 17, 2007, Stark was citing the same fear that a credit crunch could send the economy into a “standstill.”

     CBS’s Seth Doane called tightened standards a “harsh reality” on Aug. 26, 2007, but used an example of a woman trying to get a jumbo loan (more than $417,000) for a second home. NBC’s Trish Regan warned on April 14, 2007, that it was causing borrowers to get “caught in the middle of the biggest mortgage crisis in decades” and was “leaving families … in the lurch.”

     CBS called those having trouble refinancing “victims of a perfect storm” on Aug. 16, 2007. Cynthia Bowers report also complained that “it’s gotten harder for anyone to get a loan. Even people with good credit.”

     NBC complained about the scarcity of jumbo loans in an Aug. 16, 2007, segment. Reporter Diana Olick explained that it was “leaving potential home buyers like Terese Berner out in the cold.” The Berners were trying to acquire a $600,000 loan when their lender “went belly up.”

     “We worked really hard, and we can’t buy a home. Makes no sense. This is America, right?” Terese Berner complained to NBC.

     It didn’t matter what lenders did – it was wrong. According to the networks, providing “cheap” loans created the “crisis.” Tightening requirements for loans, well, that deprived people of the American dream.

     Once the subprime mortgage problems became more than a blip on the radar for the network news, there was a mad rush to hype the consequences to the economy. The terms “recession” and “bailout” were used more often.

     Instead of simply reporting the news, the media mixed together complaints, problems and left-wing solutions. That served as the foundation for new government regulation. ABC’s Betsy Stark in “The Home Wreckers” series mentioned talk of a “national mortgage refinancing corporation.” The idea of government intervention to fix whatever ails the country is a liberal dream and the media help achieve it.

     It was no surprise then when, on August 31, President Bush announced plans to use the FHA to help borrowers with “good credit” refinance mortgages to avoid foreclosure. The media’s cries for federal help had been mounting steadily in the weeks prior to the president’s decision.

     The networks stepped all over traditional values and advocated for a society where no one wanted to hold anyone accountable for anything. Political correctness demands sanitization of individual accountability lest someone be offended, or some moral truth be affirmed. The media feed this mentality in many ways while covering social and political issues.

     That mindset affected the evening news broadcasts and how they handled debt. As noted by Gary L. Wolfram, Ph. D., a professor of political economy at Hillsdale College, in a Sept. 5, 2007, column for the Business & Media Institute, “The difficulties in the subprime lending market are beginning to generate a chorus for a bailout of the mortgage industry.” The networks like the liberal mantra of the victimization of the many by the few. It feeds the bailout and entitlement mindset.

     But in the end, no one forces anyone to sign loan papers. No one forces anyone to refinance a mortgage. No one forces anyone to sign up for credit cards. Everyone who enters into any kind of financial agreement should be expected to read and understand the documents he or she is signing, and if they don’t, they shouldn’t sign the papers.

     This was clearly not the position the evening news programs took. Words like “lured,” “victim” and “entice” painted a picture of people being taken advantage of by evil business interests. And when things went poorly, the call for bailouts became the order of the day. Government intervention was termed a “rescue,” and celebrated by the liberal media.

     Depicting business as evil and untrustworthy, and consumers as victims, was far from balanced reporting. It didn’t paint an accurate picture of the economy. And fundamentally, it helped harm the culture.

     Businesses aren’t evil. Neither are borrowers. Both deserve equally fair treatment. And issues as culturally important as debt and savings deserve better treatment than they’ve received recently by the broadcast evening news programs. If the networks really want to educate consumers about the economy, they need to be willing to look at personal responsibility on a regular basis and tell the viewers to take a hard look at themselves.

     To improve news coverage of debt, BMI and CMI recommend:

• Include business perspective: The media should include the business side more often by interviewing lenders, brokers, bankers, etc. This would help balance reports and educate viewers about how businesses assess risk and make other important decisions. When businessmen are unavailable or unwilling to talk, reporters should interview industry associations and think tanks to ensure a balanced report.
  
   
• Personal responsibility is a vital component of the debt story: No one forces anyone to take out a loan or get a credit card. The inclusion of personal responsibility in stories related to debt and finances is important because it tells a more comprehensive and honest story. Journalists who use profile pieces to humanize their stories should include the personal responsibility angle in their stories.
  
   
• Borrowers aren’t automatically victims: Journalists shouldn’t simply take the side of borrowers and depict them as victims. The media need to remember that every financial agreement includes at least two parties taking risks and desiring the same outcome – to pay off the loan. Don’t save all the hard questions for businesspeople. It is reasonable to ask borrowers tough questions about the assumptions and financial decisions they made.
  
   
• Savings and thrift are important stories, too: One of the most responsible things any American can do is to save money for a rainy day. Rather than reporting doom and gloom on issues related to finance, the networks can report on how Americans are saving and securing their own financial futures.
  
   
• Take a cue from the morning shows: Networks utilize financial consultants and experts who give good financial advice to viewers of their morning shows. Evening newscasts would be well served by employing these same experts in their coverage of finance.

<Previous  1,  2,  3,  4

Executive Summary