Newspapers and their journalists owe it to readers to avoid getting caught up in the exuberance of the times. That frees them to ask important questions -- regardless of how unpopular those questions might be.
Earlier this week, we reported that local home values dropped about 8.9 percent in the last quarter of 2007, the biggest decline in 20 years. As Star Tribune reporters have dug into the meltdown in the mortgage industry, we have found evidence of straw buyers, outright fraud and speculation that drove home building and prices well beyond rational limits. What's remarkable about the cycle of the housing bubble is how quickly it followed the dot-com bubble.
In both cases, I would argue, many reporters across the country got swept up in the hype and failed to ask enough tough questions. Here are some that should have been asked repeatedly for the last five years:
If the economy is growing at a rate of 3 or 4 percent a year and home values are increasing 10 percent a year (or more in other parts of the country), is this rational? If the government keeps lowering interest rates and encouraging consumers to borrow money and spend patriotically, is it breeding irresponsible spending and personal debt levels? Is it rational to expect any economy to keep growing endlessly when the law of economics suggests a natural cycle of growth and recession? Who is buying all these houses anyway?
On a local level, I believe we bought into the line that there was no real-estate bubble, perhaps because we had never seen one in our generation. Who wants to believe that his or her home might be overvalued? On the other hand, we did do some aggressive reporting early on that should have raised serious flags for anyone paying attention.
More than three years ago, as the housing market was reaching its peak, former staff reporter John Reinan wrote a series of articles called "One Nation Under Debt." In those stories, he highlighted the increasing levels of debts consumers were taking on in their mortgages, credit cards and cars and questioned what would happen when interest rates started rising. Everything he wrote about in that series has started to unfold in the last year as equity in homes has sunk and as credit-card debts have risen. That same year, a team of reporters won national awards for a series of stories exploring how lenders were taking advantage of the poor. One of those stories illustrated how some lenders were putting buyers into subprime mortgages they could not afford.
The following spring, real-estate reporter Jim Buchta and the late Terry Fiedler reported on the local condo boom, showing how many of the condo buyers were speculators or investors and questioning whether the rate of increase in the value of these homes could be sustained. One developer referred to the condo craze as the "dot-condo" phenomenon; buyers told us they were sure the value of their condos would never go down. (Wait: Isn't that what some investors said about tech stocks in the '90s?)
Still, nothing prepared us -- or our readers -- for the fallout we have seen in the last year. Since then, reporters have been trying to figure out how the problem could have been so much worse than any of us realized. The deeper we dig, the more rotten the story looks.