More than a few folks think the media’s not been fair to real estate. We figured we’d chat with a media critic to get perspective. We found former newspaper and online news editor Dan Gainor, director of the Business & Media Institute. The group, funded in good part by oilman Boone Pickens, isn’t shy about saying what business journalists are doing wrong ….
Us: Overall, what do you think of the media’s coverage of the housing/real estate market?
Dan: The media coverage of housing is horrible. When the housing market was booming, we were warned of a “bubble.” When the boom finally slowed, we were warned it would be a disaster. It’s like the housing market is never good. It’s either bad or it soon will be. Even as a strident pessimist, I can’t muster that much negativity. And that “bubble” talk actually started before 9/11. If you had paid attention to it, you would have missed quite a boom.
Us: Do you think the coverage has been any better or worse on a national or regional basis? Since real estate’s essentially a local business, are the regional risks more properly discussed?
Dan: All politics is local, and real estate even more so. I don’t see every region in the U.S., so it’s hard to say. As a former print editor, I think local papers can go too far the opposite direction and cheerlead even in the face of bad news. I think it should be somewhere in between. Here in D.C., the government can expand its budget forever, so the local housing market is a bit skewed.
Us: Clearly we’ve had some unprecedented gains in housing. Is it fair that the media warn audiences that these kinds of profits typically don’t last forever?
Dan: Thatís responsible reporting, not doom and gloom. But it should be tempered with a couple points: (1) housing isnít just an investment, it offers a place to live, to raise a family; (2) housing tends to go up over time, so a downturn tends to rebound; and (3) when a bubble bursts, the value can be gone. That seldom happens with housing.
Us: Other media critics think the media’s been too kind to real estate, saying many newspapers — for example — may be influenced by the large sums of ad dollars generated by real estate brokerages, etc. How do you think that element has played into the media’s coverage of housing?
Dan: Here Iíll separate the media a bit. First, the TV networks donít give a darn about real estate ads. So they can hype the hell out of an imagined ìbubbleî and fear no consequences. In print, itís my hope that reporters simply tell both sides of the market. Yes, we have a downturn. No, itís probably not the end of the world. Is that more balanced view influenced by advertising? Not that Iíve seen.
Us: How about this blog. Do you think it fairly presents the issues?
Dan: This oneís easy. Iím house hunting and I wish I had something like this here. As a guy who used to cover zoning, Iím also a planning geek and I enjoyed it ñ especially the Disney/Anaheim battle. Disney duked it out here in Virginia several years ago and got caught near a Civil War battlefield. Disney lost. I think the key thing here is you didnít sugarcoat bad news, but you sure didnít hype it either.
Us: Do you have a personal outlook on the housing market?
Dan: I used to work in the financial advice field. Thankfully, I wasnít giving the advice. I am a prospective homebuyer though. So, I think my outlook might reflect some grounding in reality there. I think that people who predict apocalypse are usually wrong. I do think the downturn will continue for a bit, providing buying opportunities for people like myself. And, perhaps, the market will be soft for a while longer after that. But I am buying for the long term, so I am not worried.
