Seattle Times Real Estate coverage
The Seattle Times' real estate coverage is one-sided. At least most readers of this blog believe it, but can anyone here explain why? Do its editors even believe the coverage is balanced?
Here's the problem for the few here who think the coverage is fair. The Seattle Times almost exclusively quotes real estate industry insiders and cheerleaders like Lawrence Yun of the NAR who believes prices nationally are poised to go back up. Needless to say, that is now not a widely shared view.
Locally, we mostly hear from real estate agents, or "objective" economists like Matthew Gardner, without ever hearing that these sources may have a conflict of interest.
When the Seattle Times reports on other issues like pollitics, it identifies the source as a Republican or Democratic "campaign strategist." Not when it comes to the real estate business. Gardner, who I am sure is very good, is just identifed as a "Seattle real-estate economist," but Gardner's own website says this:
Here's the company client list:
Gardner may be objective, but don't readers deserve to know who he works for? How would his clients feel if he said in the Times that the condo market will probably drop in 2008?
From what I've read the Seattle Times almost never quotes well-known bearish experts like Professor Robert Schiller of Yale University, or someone like David Blitzer at Standard & Poor who thinks the Seattle market may well fall.
So...why is the Times so one-sided? Help me understand this? Or do I have it wrong?
Here's the problem for the few here who think the coverage is fair. The Seattle Times almost exclusively quotes real estate industry insiders and cheerleaders like Lawrence Yun of the NAR who believes prices nationally are poised to go back up. Needless to say, that is now not a widely shared view.
Locally, we mostly hear from real estate agents, or "objective" economists like Matthew Gardner, without ever hearing that these sources may have a conflict of interest.
When the Seattle Times reports on other issues like pollitics, it identifies the source as a Republican or Democratic "campaign strategist." Not when it comes to the real estate business. Gardner, who I am sure is very good, is just identifed as a "Seattle real-estate economist," but Gardner's own website says this:
Matthew is particularly passionate about urban residential development and is currently advising a number of firms with their planned and proposed developments..
Here's the company client list:
Gardner may be objective, but don't readers deserve to know who he works for? How would his clients feel if he said in the Times that the condo market will probably drop in 2008?
From what I've read the Seattle Times almost never quotes well-known bearish experts like Professor Robert Schiller of Yale University, or someone like David Blitzer at Standard & Poor who thinks the Seattle market may well fall.
So...why is the Times so one-sided? Help me understand this? Or do I have it wrong?
Comments
It's a simple matter of self-interest. Newspapers make most of their revenue from advertisements, right? I would imagine big bucks are spent to place all of the real estate ads that we see each week. If the Seattle Times publishes an objective piece on real estate indicating that potential buyers should do anything but BUY RIGHT NOW, wouldn't that run counter to the goal of all the paid real estate ads? Wouldn't the advertisers be tempted to run their ads in a more "friendly" publication? Wouldn't that put all that ad revenue at risk?
I believe The Tim and others have posted on this very subject elsewhere....
- lost help wanted ads (Monster.com, Craigslist)
- Lost other classifed ads (ebay, Craigslist)
- lost auto listings (autotrader, craigslist)
- lost a good percent of their delivery volume (and subscription revenue) to online readers
Do you remember when you used to pay $70 bucks for a 2 week listing to sell a car? it was not cheap!
About the only games they still control are real estate and obituaries. And I have to believe they are losing the real estate listings fast with all the online sites. I wouldn't even consider looking in the newspaper - but if you hire a 6%-er it's part of their "Value" to place that ad - so when you sell the house you look for the listing in the newspaper to make you feel good.
Co-dependent antiquated business models.
I'd guess it's more laziness and ignorance than anything else. There are plenty of real estate "experts" running around to tell you the market is going up, up, up.
Is there any professional in Seattle who shares the bearish view thats all over this blog? I mean someone who studies the RE market for a living? An agent, financial analyst, mortgage industry person, developer...anyone? Or are the people in the industry afraid to say what they really think in public?
A real estate agent, mortgage broker, or developer depend on sales for a living. Do you really think that they are going to do anything but encourage potential buyers to BUY RIGHT NOW! Alot of them may have a bearish perspective of the market, but very few will admit it. They want / need Mr. and Mrs. Joe Average to keep buying so they can pay their bills.
I am not sure that is a necessary conclusion. I think a smart businessman is going to hire an editor for the real estate section who is bullish on housing. Who wants to hear doom and gloom in a section that is basically dedicated to the buying and selling of residential real estate? Doesn't help readership or advertising.
I think the issue is considering the RE section of the paper "news". It is more like an advertorial.
Where it gets annoying is when the same writers bring their rosy bias to the business section, where one might expect more objectivity.
Having done a fair amount of press/spokesperson activity in my past - I'd agree with your ignorant/lazy assessment as part of the problem. The more I worked with the press, the lower my opinion of the profession fell.