NY Times eco reporter defaults on his mortgage

WSJ is pretty low on the required education scale.

Same reason few people read the economist, and go for fortune, which I think has pages you can color.

The NY Times apparently left some things out, clouding our perception of the story.

http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/05/the_road_to_bankruptcy.php

Good catch. The paper, though, treated it as a book excerpt rather than a journalistic effort of its own.

This changes everything and negates much of the story. I think the NY Times needs to do a follow-up piece. The repeated bankruptcies paint a very different picture. To me this is now a story about a couple in need of credit counseling and serial bankruptcy. As the Atlantic points out the income levels are higher than the typical bankruptcy cases and the history predates the sub prime crises to some extent. It's also a story about a paper that frequently does little or no fact checking, perhaps contributing to is circulation decline and financial woes. I grew up reading the Times and it's not the paper it was.

Wow. Another black eye for the Grey Lady. Sad.

Yes, but it wasn't a news story. It was a book excerpt. Different standards. The magazine's editor did make a bad call in handing the space over. Would've been better to have had a story about the reporter and his book.

So the New York Times magazine does not fact check contributed articles? Where is the disclaimer? Black eye for the Gray lady is right.

Minsky theory fits the NY Times reporter, he went from being a speculative unit to a ponzi unit.

NO..
A “hedged” debt unit is one where the borrower’s income is sufficient to pay interest and principal in full each month.
MAYBE FOR A WHILE...
A “speculative” debt unit is one where the borrower’s income is sufficient to pay interest but not principal.
YEP THIS IS THE ONE...
A “Ponzi” debt unit is one where the borrower’s income is insufficient to pay down either interest or principal.

It's not The New Yorker, after all. Just a newspaper. Then down a notch as it was the magazine rather than the paper itself.

As you see in the Corrections section every day, cranking a paper out doesn't allow for independent fact-checking on stories. No way to do that and still get the stories out there.

I've worked as a writer, producer, and copyeditor for two decades. There is no excuse for sloppy fact-checking, regardless of the publication

Right, fact-checking on a *news story*, to the extent you can do it and still get the paper out in the morning.

This, however, was an excerpt from a book. Since it was a NYT reporter's book, the magazine shouldn't have handled it that way. They should've had someone else write a story about their colleague's fiasco and book. Andrews wouldn't have gone for that, of course, as he'd have known the bankruptcies would've come out.

This coming on top of Daphne Merkin's Madoff piece is another swipe in the eye for the magazine. The story is that there was lots of negotiation over how she'd address her brother's involvement, yet they still got slammed.

"Right, fact-checking on a *news story*, to the extent you can do it and still get the paper out in the morning."

Please. I've copyedited for radio and television, with *hourly* deadlines, not daily or weekly deadlines. No time to fact-check? DON'T RUN THE STORY.

The New York Times: Guidelines on Our Integrity

Published: December 13, 2000
Last Updated: December 13, 2000
Printer-friendly version

The New York Times
Guidelines on Our Integrity

May 1999

Reporters, editors, photographers and all members of the news staff of The New York Times share a common and essential interest in protecting the integrity of the newspaper. As the news, editorial and business leadership of the newspaper declared jointly in 1998: "Our greatest strength is the authority and reputation of The Times. We must do nothing that would undermine or dilute it and everything possible to enhance it."

At a time of growing and even justified public suspicion about the impartiality, accuracy and integrity of some journalists and some journalism, it is imperative that The Times and its staff maintain the highest possible standards to insure that we do nothing that might erode readers' faith and confidence in our news columns. This means that staff members should be vigilant in avoiding any activity that might pose an actual or apparent conflict of interest and thus threaten the newspaper's ethical standing. And it also means that the journalism we practice daily must be beyond reproach.

No one needs to be reminded that falsifying any part of a news report cannot be tolerated and will result automatically in disciplinary action up to and including termination. But in a climate of increased scrutiny throughout the news business, these further guidelines are offered, to resolve questions that sometimes arise about specific practices:

Quotations. Readers should be able to assume that every word between quotation marks is what the speaker or writer said. The Times does not "clean up" quotations. If a subject's grammar or taste is unsuitable, quotation marks should be removed and the awkward passage paraphrased. Unless the writer has detailed notes or a recording, it is usually wise to paraphrase long comments, since they may turn up worded differently on television or in other publications. "Approximate" quotations can undermine readers' trust in The Times.

The writer should, of course, omit extraneous syllables like "um" and may judiciously delete false starts. If any further omission is necessary, close the quotation, insert new attribution and begin another quotation. (The Times does adjust spelling, punctuation, capitalization and abbreviations within a quotation for consistent style.) Detailed guidance is in the stylebook entry headed "quotations." In every case, writer and editor must both be satisfied that the intent of the subject has been preserved.

Other People's Reporting. When we use facts gathered by any other organization, we attribute them. This policy applies to material from newspapers, magazines, books and broadcasts, as well as news agencies like The Associated Press (for example, "the Senator told The Associated Press"). In other words, even though The AP is a co-op and we are members, we do not treat its reporting as our own. When writing from a pool report, if we have not witnessed the events, we attribute them to the pool reporter. In a roundup, we may use a phrase like "reports from news agencies and New York Times bureaus."

Our preference, when time and distance permit, is to do our own reporting and verify another organization's story; in that case, we need not attribute the facts. But even then, as a matter of courtesy and candor, we credit an exclusive to the organization that first broke the news.

Attribution to another publication, though, cannot serve as license to print rumors that would not meet the test of The Times's own reporting standards. Rumors must satisfy The Times's standard of newsworthiness, taste and plausibility before publication, even when attributed. And when the need arises to attribute, that is a good cue to consult with the department head about whether publication is warranted at all.

In those cases when it makes a difference whether we directly witnessed a scene, we should distinguish in print between personal interviews and telephone or E-mail interviews, as well as written statements.

Fact Checking. Writers at The Times are their own principal fact checkers and often their only ones. (Magazine articles, especially those by nonmembers of our staff, are fact-checked, but even magazine writers are accountable in the first instance for their own accuracy.) Concrete facts ­ distances, addresses, phone numbers, people's titles ­ must be verified by the writer with standard references like telephone books, city or legislative directories and official Web sites. More obscure checks may be referred to the research desk. If deadline pressure requires skipping a check, the editors should be alerted with a flag like "desk, please verify," but ideally the writer should double back for the check after filing; usually the desk can accommodate a last-minute repair. It is especially important that writers verify the spelling of names, by asking. A person who sees his or her own name misspelled in The Times is likely to mistrust whatever else we print. And too often, our correction column makes it clear that someone has guessed a spelling by the sound.

Corrections. Because our voice is loud and far-reaching, The Times recognizes an ethical responsibility to correct all its factual errors, large and small. The paper regrets every error, but it applauds the integrity of a writer who volunteers a correction of his or her own published story. Whatever the origin, though, any complaint should be relayed to a responsible supervising editor and investigated quickly. If a correction is warranted, fairness demands that it be published immediately. In case of reasonable doubt or disagreement about the facts, we can acknowledge that a statement was "imprecise" or "incomplete" even if we are not sure it was wrong.

Rebuttals. Few writers need to be reminded that we seek and publish a response from anyone criticized in our pages. But when the criticism is serious, we have a special obligation to describe the scope of the accusation and let the subject respond in detail. No subject should be taken by surprise when the paper appears, or feel that there was no chance to respond.

Anonymity and Its Devices. The use of unidentified sources is reserved for situations in which the newspaper could not otherwise print information it considers newsworthy and reliable. When possible, reporter and editor should discuss any promise of anonymity before it is made, or before the reporting begins on a story that may result in such a commitment. (Some beats, like criminal justice or national security, may carry standing authorization for the reporter to grant anonymity.) The stylebook discusses the forms of attribution for such cases: the general rule is to tell readers as much as we can about the placement and known motivation of the source. While we avoid automatic phrases about a source's having "insisted on anonymity," we should try to state tersely what kind of understanding was actually reached by reporter and source, especially when we can shed light on the source's reasons. The Times does not dissemble about its sources ­ does not, for example, refer to a single person as "sources" and does not say "other officials" when quoting someone who has already been cited by name. There can be no prescribed formula for such attribution, but it should be literally truthful, and not coy.

Fictional Devices. No reader should find cause to suspect that the paper would knowingly alter facts. For that reason, The Times refrains outright from assigning fictional names, ages, places or dates, and it strictly limits the use of other concealment devices.

If compassion or the unavoidable conditions of reporting require shielding an identity, the preferred solution is to omit the name and explain the omission. (That situation might arise, for example, in an interview conducted inside a hospital or a school governed by privacy rules.) If a complex narrative must distinguish among several shielded identities, it may be necessary to use given names with last initials or, less desirable, given names alone (Hilary K.; Ashley M.; Terry). Descriptions may serve instead (the lawyer; the Morristown psychotherapist). As a rare last resort, if genuine given names would be too revealing, real or coined single initials (Dr. D, Ms. L) may be used after consultation with senior editors. The article must gracefully indicate the device and the reason.

Masquerading. Times reporters do not actively misrepresent their identity to get a story. We may sometimes remain silent on our identity and allow assumptions to be made ­ to observe an institution's dealings with the public, for example, or the behavior of people at a rally or police officers in a bar near the station house. But a sustained, systematic deception, even a passive one ­ taking a job, for example, to observe a business from the inside ­ may be employed only after consultation between a department head and masthead editors. (Obviously, specific exceptions exist for restaurant reviewing and similar assignments.)

Photography and Images. Images in our pages that purport to depict reality must be genuine in every way. No people or objects may be added, rearranged, reversed, distorted or removed from a scene (except for the recognized practice of cropping to omit extraneous outer portions). Adjustments of color or gray scale should be limited to those minimally necessary for clear and accurate reproduction, analogous to the "burning" and "dodging" that formerly took place in darkroom processing of images. Pictures of news situations must not be posed. In the cases of collages, montages, portraits, fashion or home design illustrations, fanciful contrived situations and demonstrations of how a device is used, our intervention should be unmistakable to the reader, and unmistakably free of intent to deceive. Captions and credits should further acknowledge our intervention if the slightest doubt is possible. The design director, a masthead editor or the news desk should be consulted on doubtful cases or proposals for exceptions.

Thanks, Riversider.

Matt, it must've been great to have a limitless budget.

NWT -- excuse me?

Here's the relevant part of your painfully long copy-and-paste post: "Fact Checking. Writers at The Times are their own principal fact checkers and often their only ones. (Magazine articles, especially those by nonmembers of our staff, are fact-checked, but even magazine writers are accountable in the first instance for their own accuracy.) Concrete facts distances, addresses, phone numbers, people's titles must be verified by the writer with standard references like telephone books, city or legislative directories and official Web sites. More obscure checks may be referred to the research desk. If deadline pressure requires skipping a check, the editors should be alerted with a flag like "desk, please verify," but ideally the writer should double back for the check after filing; usually the desk can accommodate a last-minute repair."

What I'm reading is that EVERYTHING must be fact-checked, one way or another, before going to press.

It's not about budgets, it's about doing your job.

Oops I meant RIVERSIDER'S long post.

Bottom line. A reporter from the Times is omitting key information resulting in a slanted piece. As a reporter he should have been more objective. It is not a huge leap of faith to suggest others at the paper may have been aware of the omitted details.

We all agree the magazine shouldn't have published a book excerpt by a NYT reporter. Having chosen to do so, they should have assigned someone else to research Edmund and Patty(ie?)'s financial history. They could have then said, include these additional facts or the piece is no-go. It was all too close to home, so they trusted the guy. Should've known better.

Forgot to say, an omitted fact can't be checked. It would've taken research to dig up the unmentioned bankruptcies. Investigative work and fact-checking aren't the same thing.

NWT, while I understand your point -- it really is impossible to investigate an infinite number of potential omissions -- the fact that one of the Times' own reporters committed sins of omission throws that reporter's professional integrity into serious question. I'd be surprised if he still has a job at the Times after this.

It'll be interesting to see what the magazine has to say on Saturday. They'll have to acknowledge their boo-boo. The paper itself won't bother itself over what the magazine-scum do.

It'll be interesting to see what the book publisher does. Maybe he can show up on Soozie Orman and ask permission to buy something...

or start a local branch of debtors anonymous.

wow thanks Riversider. The liberal bias of NYTimes shows.

I don't know about that, Iamlooking. It sounds as though pretty much everyone had roundly condemned Bozo for his profligacy and insolvency, and the new information about the wife merely confirms what many have suspected: that she has a serious spending problem.

Does anyone else think that this book and/or publicity about her previous bankruptcies is going to be the death blow to this second marriage? Wife #2 seems pretty unhappy when people criticize her spending, and I can't imagine what it would feel like to receive that kind of scrutiny on a national level.

Riversider,
Thanks for the bankruptcy story.

evnyc,
On the contrary, those two deserve each other. She's managing her finances by declaring bankruptcy, and he's trying to write his way out of his bad decisions by blaming others and telling half-truths.

In a different time, none of us would be wasting any time discussing scoundrels like this...they would have been locked up already, or at least, publicly humiliated so that they would have disappeared into oblivion. I agree with all of you who say "Shame on the NYTimes."

someone plz scan his book and put it up on the web... I'll pay the scannner $19.99

Oh, I agree they deserve one another. But that doesn't mean that a marriage already strained by issues surrounding debt isn't going to break down over the public revelation of one partner's total fiscal mismanagement.

It was only $17-something at amazon the other day.

If Norton can get B&N to fall for it, with the display space etc. that that entails, then they might do OK. The gossip from Norton is that it's on "horrible paper", so not considered a classy book there.

"Does anyone else think that this book and/or publicity about her previous bankruptcies is going to be the death blow to this second marriage? "

No, but I think this new information about his wife's previous bankruptcies will be the death blow to his book.

Ah, Matt,you have much more faith in the power of negative publicity than I.

book remains dead on arrival at amazon. author will not see any dollars past advance.

The guy must have a really good PR person...he will be featured in "On the Money" on CNBC @ 10 PM.

the press tends to take care of its own.

Until this morning I didn't realize how apt the book title was, "BUSTED". Edmunds response can be summed up, "yea left stuff out, it wasn't relevant" ?????? see below:

Ed Andrews: It is hard to believe that anybody would accuse me of trying to airbrush a story in which I recount the cringe-inducing details of my calamitous plunge into junk mortgages.

But Megan McArdle, a blogger for the Atlantic, accuses me of omitting crucial information: namely, that my wife, Patty, was involved in two bankruptcies, one in 1998 with her former husband; and one in 2007, while she was married to me. McArdle says this is "material information that changes the tenor of the story," and then accuses Patty of "serial bankruptcy."

These bankruptcies did occur, but they had nothing to do with our mortgage woes. They were both tied to old debts from before we were married or bought a house. They had nothing to do with my ability to get a mortgage; nor did they have anything to do with our subsequent financial problems.

Since Patty had been so brave in letting me tell our own story so candidly, I wanted to spare her the public exposure on these older woes. But that is now impossible, so here is the story:

The first bankruptcy in 1998, five years before Patty and I got together. It occurred because Patty's former husband, a producer of TV commercials in Los Angeles, didn't file income tax returns for five years. Patty, who was a stay-at-home mom and wasn't earning money, was blindsided. She had been signing returns, but he hadn't actually been filing them. Because her husband's business income was reported on their personal tax returns, she had to join him in the bankruptcy filing.

All that happened in 1998, and it obviously had nothing to do with the story in Busted. It never even occurred to me to mention it.

Patty's second bankruptcy stemmed from a loan she received from her sister, while Patty was still living in Los Angeles. At the time, she was caring for four children, working for very modest pay, and receiving almost no child support from her ex-husband. (Despite multiple court orders, he remains chronically delinquent on untold thousands of dollars.)

When Patty couldn't repay, her sister followed her east and sued her. I offered to pay off the loan by withdrawing money out of my 401k, but I wasn't allowed to because the purpose didn't qualify as a "hardship." Without an alternative, Patty had no choice but to seek bankruptcy protection.

None of this has any connection to our story. It had nothing to do with Patty being a spendthrift. It had no bearing on my ability to take out a mortgage, and it had nothing to do with our financial problems.

Fortunately or unfortunately, Busted is a simple story: we took out a mortgage we couldn't afford, earned less than we hoped and couldn't bridge the gap.

and Henry Blodget's take on Edmunds...(re omitted details being irrelevant)
http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-busted-nyt-reporter-explains-wifes-multiple-bankruptcies-2009-5

We have to disagree there. On the contrary, it seems an integral part of the financial problems. After enduring two bankruptcies, Patty wasn't the least bit gun-shy? She hadn't developed a deep-seated fear of owing people money? Based on Andrews' original story, apparently not. On the contrary: She seemed annoyed that he was concerned about it.

The prospect of going bust again , in other words, was no longer scary. It was just what you did when you owed people money you couldn't pay back. And given that she had done that twice and it had worked out, what was the harm in charging right down that same path again?

http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/05/edmund_andrews_has_responded_t.php

The Atlantic responds:

* I'm not "accusing" Ms. Barreiro of serial bankruptcy: she has filed bankruptcy basically back to back, which no one is disputing. That is serial bankruptcy.
* Patty Barreiro's first bankuptcy does not merely clear past tax debts--indeed, it's really very difficult to shed past tax debts in bankruptcy. They also discharged $47,655.37 in credit card debt, $4701.10 in past medical bills, $14,303 in tuition to Campbell Hall, a Los Angeles private school, and a few other miscellaneous bills. I don't have time right now to look up what the disposition of their debts to the IRS for the 1996-98 tax years was, but I suspect they ended up paying the $70,000 they owed. Frankly, given what Edmund Andrews' says, I'm surprised they got any of their tax debt discharged: as I understand it, it's nearly impossible to discharge tax debts due to fraud.
* Patty Barreiro's second bankruptcy does not merely clear a lawsuit. The value of the settlement was $29,000. The total vale of the unsecured claims discharged was $55,313, inclding almost $8,000 for legal services, almost $10,000 in medical bills, $1200 in phone bills, $1100 owed to Comcast, and $5400 in credit card debt. If the purpose of the bankruptcy was merely to clear the lawsuit settlement, she could have reaffirmed the other bills, though of course, in practice no one ever does that--if you're going to declare bankruptcy, you might as well get a really fresh start. It's hard to fault her for clearing the debts, but the fact remains that nearly half the obligations she discharged were not part of the settlement.
* Andrews is saying that the lawsuit was the driving factor behind the bankruptcy, and that the other unsecured debts are therefore somehow irrelevant. But neither the book nor the bankruptcy filing indicate the means to clear the other unsecured claims without Chapter 7; by her own worksheets, she had very little income and their joint income was exceeded by their allowable expenses. Plus, of course, they're awaiting foreclosure now. If she hadn't declared bankruptcy, where would they have gotten the $25,000 to pay off the medical, legal, credit card, and utility bills she discharged?
* Andrews is correct that many of the debts seem to have been incurred prior to the marriage. I'm not sure what this changes. My contention was not that she somehow illegally shed marital debts--the judge had every opportunity to force him into bankruptcy if he wished. My contention was, first, that the shedding of joint and prior debts along with the lawsuit settlement looks somewhat strategic, and second, that declaring bankruptcy twice is often a sign of deep problems with financial management, and thus should have been disclosed, if only to explain it away.
* People who declare bankruptcy really are not like other people. People who declare bankruptcy twice, even less so. They have very different financial profiles from the average American--less savings, more debt. When an adverse event occurs, they have no margin for error. And, of course, it's only worth declaring bankruptcy if you've run up some pretty substantial bills; one hears horror stories about naive people declaring bankruptcy to get rid of $2000 in credit card debt or some such, and their attorneys should be publicly shamed before being ridden out of town on a rail. But the average debt discharged in bankruptcy in a Chapter 7 filing seems to be in the tens of thousands.
* That kind of living up to the edge is, indeed, exactly what Andrews describes happening in his marriage. The bankruptcies suggest that this may be a symptom of a pre-existing problem, rather than the easy credit of the past five years.
* Andrews seems to now be arguing that the Chapter 7 filings are not relevant because they didn't affect his ability to get a mortgage. But of course the article and the book is not just about him--rightly, because unless your marriage is pretty dysfunctional, it's a financial partnership. The two bankruptcies seem to reveal that one partner has demonstrated a historic inability to live within their means. So though the bankruptcies don't tell us anything about their ability to get a mortgage on their house, they may tell us quite a bit about their willingness to take on a mortgage. This decision is at least as important as the bank's. I'm sure banks would have given me all kinds of stupid mortgage loans in 2004, but I didn't avail myself of the opportunity.

I have an email in to Ms. Carman, Ms. Barreiro's sister, but haven't yet heard back, so I can't comment on the particulars of the story--and anyway, I'm not sure how much the particulars matter.

On a very broad note, I don't see this as a story about the goodness or badness of Andrews or Barreiro--and I've been dismayed by some of the nastiness about her in comments here and elsewhere. Rather, I think this matters because the story Andrews told was basically about the subprime crisis, and the book casts him as a sort of everyman, lured in by cheap credit and a likeable scoundrel of a mortgage broker. That may be what happened to many, or most people in the mortgage crisis--but the back to back bankruptcies strongly suggest that this is not what happened to Andrews. That said, I think the story told with the bankruptcies included would still be a story well worth telling.

broken record time...yet another example of how truth and common sense have all but disappeared. and yet another reason to blame all borrowers because of the actions of these particular people. no matter how you spin it--two bankruptcies clearly change everything. kind of like telling the sad story of the guy/gal who got behind the wheel having had one too many and unfortunately kills someone and leaving out the two prior dui arrests and license suspensions. very different picture.

Anybody remember William FRey?
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0104061jamesfrey1.html

oh and Oprah's fact checking is the stuff of legends...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/30/holocaust.hoax.love.story/index.html

On the money advice show on CNBC yesterday, Edmunds was told he to arrange a short sale because he can't afford the house. His answer:

- they just need another $1K a month to make it work. The wife's income is supposed to rise, so they are expected to have the $5K take home they'll need every month (the CNBC woman pointed out that $1K a month really means a $20K raise and who can rely on that?).
- he doesn't want to arrange a short sale because he wants to hear what the bank has to say (presumably, to hear whether the bank agrees to forgive principal/reduce interest on the mortgage).

I.e. the guy is (a) still relying on POSSIBLE future income in managing his finances and (b) hoping that someone else (the bank) pays for the errors of his ways.

P.S. He says he has $30K cash from the book, with no guarantees of further $$$.

Clearly entrenched in what Minsky described as the Ponzi phase.
Two lay-up predictions... 1) Book deal is off
2) He stops appearing in the NY Times

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=05&year=2009&base_name=totally_busted

It's a disaster. And what's becoming more apparent is that EA doesn't know it.

Also apparent the book was a get rich quick scheme that back-fired. He's just not accepting it yet...

Nah, it didn't back-fire financially. $100K advance, less 10%, less taxes, was still easy money. For someone who writes for a living, cranking out 240 pages of blah blah blah about himself was a cinch. He's way past the public-humiliation aspect.

The public editor of the NY Times weighs in..... (Was very difficult to find this)
Covering your own crisis

In the fall of 2007, Andrews went to his editors with a book proposal. He wanted to tell how the subprime mortgage crisis happened — greedy lenders, regulators who looked the other way and people like himself who made foolish choices.

Though the timing was terrible for The Times — Andrews was the main Washington reporter on the story — he burned to illuminate a national crisis through his personal experience. And he had another strong reason: He needed money.

“I was desperate,” he said. He still is. Seven months behind on his mortgage, he may lose his home unless “Busted,” which comes out this week, is a hit.

When Craig Whitney, the standards editor, read Andrews’s proposal, he asked, “Can you really keep covering this issue if you’re personally involved?” Andrews said he did not think any policy decisions would affect him, but if they did, it would not be much different from a reporter covering taxes who stood to benefit from a middle-class tax cut.

After an article adapted from “Busted” was published in last week’s Sunday magazine, Bradley Laue, a lawyer in Greeley, Colo., asked how Andrews could continue covering economics. Laue said it would be “like me being disbarred and then reporting on the ethics of lawyers.”

Dean Baquet, the Washington bureau chief, disagreed. Andrews used poor judgment, he said, but it was legal and encouraged by the lending system.

Baquet said that Andrews’s own experience gave him a perspective shared by millions of Americans, an advantage. Kelly McBride, an ethicist at the Poynter Institute, agreed. With vigilance by editors, she said, “this guy could be the perfect person to cover this story.”

I do not think Andrews is the same as a disbarred lawyer, but I do not think he is the same as a reporter covering tax cuts, unless that reporter is way behind in paying his taxes.

Baquet said he saw no conflict in Andrews’s personal situation and his beat, but he knew that some people would perceive one, so he tried to minimize the reporter’s involvement in “covering things directly related to the housing collapse.” Andrews told me: “I shy away from articles about the pros and cons of this approach or that approach in aiding homeowners. I would have too much at stake.”

But Baquet acknowledged they have not been rigorous about it. Andrews shared a front-page byline when President Obama announced his plan to help homeowners in danger of foreclosure. He wrote about details of the plan, demands by senators that foreclosures be delayed, and an agreement to freeze interest rates on some subprime mortgages.

Andrews is an excellent reporter who explains complex issues clearly. There are plenty of them to cover without assigning him to those that could directly affect whether he keeps his own house. He is too close to that story.

He can’t be too cautious. On Thursday, he came under attack from a blogger for The Atlantic for not mentioning in his book that his wife had twice filed for bankruptcy — the second time while they were married, though Andrews said it involved an old loan from a family member. He said he had wanted to spare his wife any more embarrassment. The blogger said the omission undercut Andrews’s story, but I think it was clear that he and his wife could not manage their finances, bankruptcies or no. Still, he should have revealed the second one, if only to head off the criticism.

Felix Salmon opines and points out the something interesting the attitude of the Times toward the on-line community..

May 24th, 2009 17:34
The NYT ombudsman’s blogophobia
Comments (5)
Posted by: Felix Salmon
Tags: journalism

The good news: the NYT’s ombudsman, Clark Hoyt, has weighed in with uncommon speed on l’affaire Andrews. But he’s done so in a most peculiar way: he spends 11 paragraphs on whether or not Andrews should be covering his own personal housing crisis at all, given his job, and then moves on to Megan McArdle’s bombshell with one final tacked-on graf, in which he can’t even bring himself to mention McArdle by name. (She’s first “a blogger for The Atlantic”, and then just “the blogger”. You’ll excuse me for reading that language pejoratively: if a newspaper columnist had written the same thing, I doubt they would have just been “a columnist” and “the columnist”.)

Here’s Hoyt’s conclusion in full:

Andrews is an excellent reporter who explains complex issues clearly. There are plenty of them to cover without assigning him to those that could directly affect whether he keeps his own house. He is too close to that story.

He can’t be too cautious. On Thursday, he came under attack from a blogger for The Atlantic for not mentioning in his book that his wife had twice filed for bankruptcy — the second time while they were married, though Andrews said it involved an old loan from a family member. He said he had wanted to spare his wife any more embarrassment. The blogger said the omission undercut Andrews’s story, but I think it was clear that he and his wife could not manage their finances, bankruptcies or no. Still, he should have revealed the second one, if only to head off the criticism.

“He can’t be too cautious” carries with it the clear implication that the next bit of criticism is largely unwarranted — an implication which is reinforced by Hoyt’s inability to name McArdle. And the way he talks about Andrews being “under attack” from this anonymous blogger also naturally puts the reader on Andrews’s side.

Eventually, Hoyt decides that Andrews’s wife’s bankruptcies really aren’t germane after all, on the rather peculiar grounds that since Andrews is open about his inability to manage his finances in any event, the news of the bankruptcies doesn’t really add anything. Huh? There’s a world of difference between a couple who can’t manage their finances and who are sucked into the subprime bubble, on the one hand, and a couple with two bankruptcy filings in the space of 8 years and 4 months, on the other. (You’re not allowed to file for bankruptcy within 8 years of your last filing.)

The reason why Andrews should have revealed both bankruptcy filings (not only the second one) is that they’re highly relevant to his family’s finances, and he’s written an entire book about his family’s finances. The reason is not just “to head off the criticism” he might end up receiving from the blogosphere.

As for the whiff of latent blogophobia which wafts through the whole thing, it’s worth noting that although Hoyt has a blog, he hasn’t written a substantive blog entry there all year — all the content from 2009 so far has been written by others and simply posted by Hoyt. What’s more, the NYT has broken links to his predecessors’ blogs: Dan Okrent’s blog used to be here, while Barney Calame’s used to be here. Neither link works any more. Clearly, if you want to make an impression on the public editor, it’s best to avoid any hint that you might be a blogger. It seems that McArdle should have mailed Hoyt an official complaint, on Atlantic letterhead, signing herself the Business and Economics Editor of The Atlantic: Hoyt would probably have taken that more seriously. It’s very sad that he still hasn’t moved on from that credentialist world.

Interesting article showing how buying the house netted Edmunds ~100K:

http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-subprime-delong-mortgage-system-gave-busted-nyt-reporter-an-extra-100000-to-spend-2009-5

Sorry, "Edmunds" should be "Andrews".

Seems Edmund Andrews and the NY Times have parted ways.

http://www.capitalgainsandgames.com/about-site

why is this interesting?