|
 |
 |
|
| ||||
          | |||||||
| |||||||
| |||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||
 |
« Previous Entry | Main | Next Entry » Response to Andrews-McArdle
Question: How do you react to the unseasonal blizzard of emails in response to the Megan McArdle post/the Ed Andrews parry/the McArdle riposte? Paul Solman: Fascinating to see the strength of sentiment -- on both sides. Enough of the facts are out there for viewers and readers to form their own conclusions, I think. Personally, I should recuse myself in that I really liked Ed and wife Patty and was especially taken with the two children I met: a young adult son of his and her 11-year-old daughter. So I was quite sympathetic, I guess, to an answer of his that didn't make it into our NewsHour story. It came when I pressed the question, "How could you have fallen for it?" "I didn't fall for it. I knew this was a huge gamble from the moment I took it on, but a house is the kind of thing that grabs a hold of you in so many different ways. It was absolutely the critical link for my kids to have the stability and continuity as I tried to start the second chapter of my life. It was crucial to having our families be able to come together, and we had a lot of children between the two of us. If it was just Patty and me we wouldn't have gone down this road. We had a boatload, a Brady-bunch load of kids between us and so you know this was the part that could make the dream come true and I had my own dream here." This hardly gets him off the hook. But then, he said he was guilty as sin, only no more so than many people around him. In that regard, I do wonder at some of the vituperation. Of course, I especially wonder when the vituperation is directed against me. We were doing a book interview, not an investigative report or expose, so the expectation that we check court records about bankruptcies we didn't even know of is -- well, how to put this? -- somewhat extravagant. That said, had I known about the bankruptcies, I certainly would have asked about them. I sure was surprised to read about them in McArdle's columns. As to identifying Ms. McArdle as "a free-market enthusiast," I meant only to compress, without prejudice, some sense of her economic bent. Regular readers of this page know that "free-market enthusiast" Adam Smith is perhaps my favorite economist. This makes me suspect many of the commenters below were NOT regular readers of this page, to which they are herewith warmly welcomed. They should also be advised that I was trying to be careful. I had not wanted to shorthand Ms. McArdle simply, as she is often identified, as "libertarian," since she herself has modified the term in writing of her "libertarian-ish perch." As to her writing under the pen name "Jane Galt" for more than a decade, an apparent kindred-spirit allusion to the steely free-market hero of Objectivist Ayn Rand's libertarian scripture, " But you see how long all this is taking. And the post was about Ed Andrews, not McArdle. As to his poltical persuasion, I haven't a clue. Update: On Sunday, liberal Democrat economist Brad DeLong published a long and thoughtful comment on the Andrews/McArdle affair on his blog. -- Posted May 25, 2009 | Comments (10) | Permalink
 TrackBacksListed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Response to Andrews-McArdle. TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/mt4/mt-tb.cgi/1331 10 CommentsLeave a comment |
|
|
 |
||
|
 |
 |
|
ABOUT US |  |
FEEDBACK | |
SUBSCRIPTIONS / FEEDS: |  
| |
|
        |
|
| Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station. | ||
| ||
| PBS Online Privacy Policy Copyright ©1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved. | ||
| ||
"Fascinating to see the strength of sentiment -- on both sides."
You're kidding, right? The overwhelmingly prevalent sentiment doesn't favor Andrews, as you surely know.
"But then, he said he was guilty as sin, only no more so than many people around him. In that regard, I do wonder at some of the vituperation."
Do you honestly wonder? If you don't get it by now, you are -- respectfully-- a bit clueless. My hunch, however, is that you are now engaging in a combination of C.Y.A. and protecting one of your own a la Mr. Hoyt.
Let me try to explain a little of the vituperation (at least that that may be emanating from me):
The Andrews' could not afford the house when they bought it. They knew this. At no point since that time have they been able to afford it, although that did not stop them from rolling 50k of credit card debt into it with a refi, thus making it even more unaffordable. In the CNBC "On The Money" interview, Mr. Andrews clearly states that he wants to keep the house, hoping for a mortgage modification that will make it affordable to him. He does not deny the host's assertion (correct assertion, in my opinion) that only a principal reduction could make the house affordable for him - that in fact interest rate reduction would be insufficient. His statement that he is hopeful that his wife's earning power will increase is silly given that her past record gives no support for this. It is so OBVIOUS
(continued) that what he wants is to be given something that he has not earned, simply because he wants it. That's not a very pretty attitude in an adult.
I've never met the Andrews family but it is hard to like them knowing they misled the bank with their mortgage application, stiffed a public library, a sibling, a veterinarian, and yes, a cosmetic surgeon as well as various other creditors. I have nothing against those who file bankruptcy as I believe that bankruptcy is an important protection for many people, but those earning over 100K a year, and those who file more than once do deserve extra scrutiny as to their motives, whether they have a shopping addiction or if they are deliberately trying to take advantage of the system. I also do not like the idea of an author misleading his readers/publisher and being rewarded for that.
It's a cheap ploy to bolster your defense by mentioning how you were "especially taken" with the kids. Even the most "vituperative" comments in the blogosphere generally leave them out of it; you should too.
But you identified McArdle as a blogger, not a journalist, which might lend some unwary readers to think that she wasn't a member of the Important Writers Club, and thus, could be discounted.
And if you have, oh, say, George W. Bush, as a guest for a book interview, can we expect the same sort of treatment? A nice chat about the book, rathner than an investigative report or expose?
So is this how big city journalists work? If you like someone, he gets the kid-glove treatment? That's not text-book objective reporting. My tax dollars at work. I really expected better from NewsHour.
Of course, I especially wonder when the vituperation is directed against me. We were doing a book interview, not an investigative report or expose, so the expectation that we check court records about bankruptcies we didn't even know of is -- well, how to put this? -- somewhat extravagant.
No one was expecting an expose: but did you or your producers read the book? It makes it entirely clear that he's not a "nice guy", but an over-entitled horndog who has no moral compass.
Apparently you are unfamiliar with "Atlas Shrugged" which should disqualify you from commenting on Ayn Rand' "scripture."
> We were doing a book interview, not an investigative report or expose
If you were not doing an investigative report or expose why did you feel the need to grill the mortgage broker and imply that he should second guess a NY Times reporter whose beat is finance over whether he could afford the mortgage?
Andrews should have known full well that there was no way this would work and trying to pin it on the broker is disgusting, this wasn't some slimy grifter scamming a rube who couldn't know any better.