Post asks itself: Was Obama mortgage story fair?

A large number of you were critical of a post I put up on July 2 linking to a Washington Post article headlined "Obama Got Discount on Home Loan."

That said, many of you will be interested in the Post's own follow-up, in which the paper's ombudsman asks whether the story was fair.

Highlights: The Post received more than 1,700 comments on the story, many complaining that it was unfair and negative. So was the story unfair? The ombudsman, Deborah Howell, hedges. She quotes critics of the story: "No story," says financial adviser Stephen B. Smith. "It's a very normal mortgage gotten by normal people, not even a sweetheart deal.

She also quotes defenders of the story: "I wish I had written the story," says Holden Lewis, who covers mortgages for Bankrate.com. "I realize that the story annoyed some people, but this was a case of an enterprising reporter asking a question that had to be asked and who got it answered thoroughly."

The Post's final verdict, as I read it: The story had news value and belonged in the paper but was unneccessarily negative.

Your thoughts? Comments? E-mail story tips to peter.viles@latimes.com.
Photo Credit: Bloomberg News.

Comments

[MyLessThanPrimeBeef]

You demand average things from average politicians.

From great statesmen, you ask for great things.

Now, voters can ask questions reporters can't and of great statesmen, we can ask, 'What would you do if you first come into a lot of money?'

A great statesman doesn't rush to buy himself a mansion and claims to speak for the average Joe.

I am glad I read the story.

[E]

C'mon...seriously.

Do you really thing that all the crooks...I mean politicians...both Dem and Rep...sat around in their "lairs" planning how they could save a couple thousand dollars on their mortgages?

When politicians want to steal. I'd bet they stand by the old saying...

"Go Big or Go Home"

[Trudy Self]

Compare the Post story on Obama with all the stories on the Clintons 16 years ago, 12 years ago, 8 years ago and this Spring. Obama is being treated with kid gloves in comparison-- that is what is blatantly unfair.

[Slipstream]

The "defender" of the story, Holden Lewis, also said, "I would have stressed that the mortgage rate was normal for someone who has $3 million invested with the brokerage lending the money. The money they invested was more than the mortgage, so they are incredibly good credit risks.''

The ombudsman concludes not only that the story was unnecessarily negative, but that "it also lacked the important context that other wealthy and savvy borrowers could have done as well under similar circumstances."

[Guy]

The author congratulates herself that, in her first article, she raised a good question, "Did Obame receive a sweetheart deal?"

Too bad that she waited until the second article to finally do some research and realize that the answer is, "Probably no. Obama's mortgage was within a normal range."

Her first article was irresponsible; she raised an accusatory question without trying to research the answer.

[Miami Meltdown]

These Obama folks seem to be very thin-skinned...I'm just sayin'.

[Holden Lewis]

My defense of Joe Stephens' article was stronger than Deborah Howell implied. Here is the text of an email I sent her last Tuesday:

fter we talked today, I reread Joe Stephens' article about Obama's mortgage, and I think one of your concerns about it is misguided. It's not a cheap shot, nor is it irrelevant, to mention Countrywide's favorable deals for Dodd and Conrad. That paragraph explains why Stephens wrote the story. After the Countrywide-Dodd-Conrad news came out, the presidential candidates' mortgages were relevant. It was inevitable that someone would look into Obama's mortgage. Stephens happened to be the reporter who took the initiative. If he hadn't done it, the Times would have, or I would have, or someone else.

But what if I'm wrong. Imagine if no one had bothered to inquire about Obama's mortgage, and now it was late October, and voters wondered why the news media were ignoring such an obvious issue. Even if Stephens hadn't found anything questionable about Obama's mortgage, it would have been responsible to write a short article about it, just to put a marker down that a reporter had scrutinized the transaction.

But Stephens did find something unusual -- a lower-than-expected rate. When I read the article last week, I was annoyed that Stephens hadn't explained that private banks often give good mortgage deals to millionaire clients. But then I re-read the article today. Stephens gave two spokesbots an opportunity to explain that wealthy private-banking clients get mortgage deals that regular joes don't get. But they answered his questions in robotic corporate PR-speak instead of talking like real people. Stephens gave two people a chance to explain; instead, they obfuscated.

Someone from the campaign said the mortgage was "consistent with Northern Trust policies, and it reflected the base rate set for that period discounted to address the competition for the account and other opportunities, such as personal financial services, that the relationship would bring to Northern Trust." Then a guy at Northern Trust said: "Our business model is to service and pursue successful individuals, families and institutions."

Translation: "When a guy signs a million-dollar book deal, and his wife's salary has just doubled, and he's just been elected to the most exclusive club on Earth, we will give him a good mortgage deal so he will give us the business of managing his multimillion-dollar portfolio." That's what the spokespeople from the campaign and Northern Trust meant, but they refused to speak English. Even HAL, the computer in "2001," sounded less robotic than those people. Stephens could have paraphrased, but that would have elided the defensive quality of those two quotes.

I realize that the article annoyed some people, but this was a case of an enterprising reporter asking a question that had to be asked, and who got it answered thoroughly. Believe me, I frequently complain about the Post's political coverage because it's too easy on the Republicans and too hard on the Democrats. But in this case, Stephens should be lauded. I wish I had written that story. It was fair and complete.

[keith]

The American people should be wary of a presidential candidate about whom anything negative reported is immediately decried as "unfair" or "biased". This is the most powerful position in the free world, it is dangerous not to examine all sides of the candidate. No one's perfect, his imperfections should be explored and understood.

[ice weasel]

ZZzz z zZZ ZZ ZZ z zzzz Z Z z z z zzzzZZz

If you have something to say about this story Peter, say it. Merely posting it again without any comment from you on whether you think it was right for you to post it in the first place is lame.

I'll say it again, grow up or perhaps more importantly, quit wasting my time.

[Tim]

The far more interesting, and salient, story is how the candidates manage their money and what it might (or might not) say about their approach to money in general and taxpayer money in particular.

I'm surprised to have read somewhere that the Obamas have a lot of money invested plus have put aside money for their kids college fund. And then read the McCains have low hundreds of thousands on their Amex card(s). It suggests the Obamas are skinflints while the McCains are profligate. As a voter, I'd like to know enough to know if that characterization is true, rather than leave it to guessing, and what is typical behavior for people and politicians in both their circumstances.

That said, besides publishing a couple articles that clearly and thoroughly present this information for voters, it's of marginal value as to how politicians would act. Their voting records probably are more predictive.

And for once I'd like to see poor people in politics. It can't be good that only millionaires can run for office.

[peteviles]

ice weasal writes, "If you have something to say about this story Peter, say it."

Thanks, wease. I said my piece about the story already, but I'll repeat it here: I posted it because I believe it is newsworthy, and said so in the original post: " Financial information about candidates is news. How much money do they make? How much do they borrow? At what terms, and from whom? In a time of mortgage madness, what kind of mortgage do they carry?"

[MyLessThanPrimeBeef]

What heppened to the days when this country produced great men who wore tall hats, were happy with just simple log cabins and paid all cash for them?

Those were the honest days!

[sheila]

you say:

"The Post's final verdict, as I read it: The story had news value and belonged in the paper but was unneccessarily negative."

umm, what about what she ACTUALLY SAID, Peter? Why did you stop reading right when she was saying that the whole "report" failed to take in the context of the loan, the wealth and creditworthiness of the borrower, and the fact that pretty much anyone with his kind of brains and money could have gotten the same loan?

Her conclusion:

"Still, the story had a negative cast to it. It also lacked the important context that other wealthy and savvy borrowers could have done as well under similar circumstances."

Sorry, but that sounds a lot to me like "yes, it was a newsworthy topic, but the actual reporting was crappy, incomplete and unfair."

NB - the "critic" of the story you quote above who said it was a non-event and not a sweetheart deal is a rabid republican...

[the problemwithcaring]

A great statesman doesn't rush to buy himself a mansion and claims to speak for the average Joe.

I am glad I read the story.

Posted by: MyLessThanPrimeBeef

LOL. eyes rolling!! If people applied this same morality index and standards of financial acumen to "self-made" men like McCain and Bush, their brains would explode. Most of these bloggers and reporters who breathlessly followed up the WSJ sensationalism have not the first clue what is going on with McCain’s finances and have no interest in finding out. Does that upset or confuse you, myLess?

Seriously, if Obama wanted mansions, wouldn't it have been easier to unceremoniously dump his loyal wife for a beer heiress, or show some other outward sign that he is in it for money's sake? I don't know many "average joes" that spend the better part of a decade organizing for strangers on the South Side of Chicago, but not a lot of guys who are in it strictly for the mansions go that route.

Knowing what rate Sen. Obama got on his loan is interesting – though this is coming from someone who in read US Weekly what Britney and Adnan ate at the Ivy for lunch and found that interesting. Still you can say, in that way, I am “glad” that I read the story. And while I agree with ice weasel – I guess, if peterviles is determined to waste our time with useless and ambiguously ominous Obama information on this blog, we can do worse than Obama as the “mansion-grabbing rich guy, typical politician” meme. The “Friend of Angelo” stuff was wearing on my nerves.

[NewtoLA]

Two points:
1) This type of story--who made how much, paid what in taxes, owes this much is pretty weak relative to the importance of the office. Makes me wonder if reporters and readers are not bright enough to ask really good questions about public policy.

2) "The American people should be wary of a presidential candidate about whom anything negative reported is immediately decried as "unfair" or "biased". "

Please name one presidential candidated that didn't do this. I'll take one instance when they said--Hey reporter x, nice shot. I was hoping you wouldn't bring that up. --Let's face it, If it's not race or gender it's either the vast left or right wing "conspiricies" that they complain about.

[MyLessThanPrimeBeef]

Problemwithcaring, let me put it this way, if McCain is happy with owning just one log cabin, debt free and live in it, I would change my mind and vote for him.

[the problemwithcaring]

Problemwithcaring, let me put it this way, if McCain is happy with owning just one log cabin, debt free and live in it, I would change my mind and vote for him.

Posted by: MyLessThanPrimeBeef

Interesting. Perhaps we can nominate the Unibomber for the American Independent Party ticket.

But, then there is the matter of making a third party candidate viable in the American political system. Oooo...yea....well....We've only been trying that for 3 or 4 hundred years - I am sure we can make that happen before -- if not the educational, social, political, security, food, climate, and healthcare crisis are solved -- then certainly by the time we make any headway on the housing crisis.

Now, in the meantime, is there a random misogynist handy? – Say, Jeb Bush or Jim Webb or some other Person Who Truly Speaks On Behalf Of the Average Joe, and who would be willing to pinch hit? I mean, it really doesn't matter who is president -- as all Politicos are the same.