<p>Well, did the Times and the publisher, know about him suppressing the bankruptcy information?</p>
<p>“Her sister sued to get her money back, and won.”</p>
<p>My read is that the case was settled for $30k. If that’s true, then the loan from the sister might have been quite a bit larger than $30k…no one settles for the full amount of the alleged debt.</p>
<p>“Barriero went into bankruptcy to avoid paying back her sister.”</p>
<p>And Andrews has the temerity to suggest that the sister was somehow wrong or unreasonable to try to get her money back. Meanwhile, Patty got rid of the debt and kept shopping at J. Crew and Whole Foods while her sister ate the $30k loss. But surely that’s the sister’s fault for making easy credit available to deadbeats…</p>
<p>Mattmom – they should know NOW – and we will see how they react. I would suggest the both the NY Times and the publisher, W.W. Norton, either did incredibly poor fact checking – given this is the saga of two people’s problems with finances – or have incredibly poor judgement – or both.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, clearly, the sister must have “enticed” Patty into borrowing the money.</p>
<p>On May 23, the Public Editor of the New York Times, Clark Hoyt, wrote the following – which as can be seen, focuses much more on Andrews covering an issue that effects him, and much less on the failure to disclose the bankruptcy. Hoyt, who is dealing with integrity issues at the Times, seems to be more concerned with protecting the feelings of reporters and less with the reputation of the times. I cry. I loved the New York Times since I was in high school. When I was in college, in the days before electronic newspapers, the Sunday New York Times was one of my few luxuries. But if they do not care about their own integrity, they will have no one to blame but themselves if people do not look up to them. </p>
<p>"Covering your own crisis</p>
<p>In the fall of 2007, Andrews went to his editors with a book proposal. He wanted to tell how the subprime mortgage crisis happened — greedy lenders, regulators who looked the other way and people like himself who made foolish choices. </p>
<p>Though the timing was terrible for The Times — Andrews was the main Washington reporter on the story — he burned to illuminate a national crisis through his personal experience. And he had another strong reason: He needed money.</p>
<p>“I was desperate,” he said. He still is. Seven months behind on his mortgage, he may lose his home unless “Busted,” which comes out this week, is a hit.</p>
<p>When Craig Whitney, the standards editor, read Andrews’s proposal, he asked, “Can you really keep covering this issue if you’re personally involved?” Andrews said he did not think any policy decisions would affect him, but if they did, it would not be much different from a reporter covering taxes who stood to benefit from a middle-class tax cut.</p>
<p>After an article adapted from “Busted” was published in last week’s Sunday magazine, Bradley Laue, a lawyer in Greeley, Colo., asked how Andrews could continue covering economics. Laue said it would be “like me being disbarred and then reporting on the ethics of lawyers.”</p>
<p>Dean Baquet, the Washington bureau chief, disagreed. Andrews used poor judgment, he said, but it was legal and encouraged by the lending system. </p>
<p>Baquet said that Andrews’s own experience gave him a perspective shared by millions of Americans, an advantage. Kelly McBride, an ethicist at the Poynter Institute, agreed. With vigilance by editors, she said, “this guy could be the perfect person to cover this story.”</p>
<p>I do not think Andrews is the same as a disbarred lawyer, but I do not think he is the same as a reporter covering tax cuts, unless that reporter is way behind in paying his taxes. </p>
<p>Baquet said he saw no conflict in Andrews’s personal situation and his beat, but he knew that some people would perceive one, so he tried to minimize the reporter’s involvement in “covering things directly related to the housing collapse.” Andrews told me: “I shy away from articles about the pros and cons of this approach or that approach in aiding homeowners. I would have too much at stake.”</p>
<p>But Baquet acknowledged they have not been rigorous about it. Andrews shared a front-page byline when President Obama announced his plan to help homeowners in danger of foreclosure. He wrote about details of the plan, demands by senators that foreclosures be delayed, and an agreement to freeze interest rates on some subprime mortgages.</p>
<p>Andrews is an excellent reporter who explains complex issues clearly. There are plenty of them to cover without assigning him to those that could directly affect whether he keeps his own house. He is too close to that story.</p>
<p>He can’t be too cautious. On Thursday, he came under attack from a blogger for The Atlantic for not mentioning in his book that his wife had twice filed for bankruptcy — the second time while they were married, though Andrews said it involved an old loan from a family member. He said he had wanted to spare his wife any more embarrassment. The blogger said the omission undercut Andrews’s story, but I think it was clear that he and his wife could not manage their finances, bankruptcies or no. Still, he should have revealed the second one, if only to head off the criticism."</p>
<p>I will always read the NYT every day–it’s habit–but they lost their moral compass a long time ago. Hoyt et al should be ashamed.</p>
<p>Yes, Hmom, I will read it too. But as newspapers are under financial pressure from electronic communications, if they do not understand that they must maintain their intergrity they are doomed.</p>
<p>I’ve sent an email to Clark Hoyt, the Public Editor of the Times. How the gray lady has fallen from grace.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wow, legitimate editor couldn’t hide the contempt for bloggers. In a short few moons, I predict Clark will be applying for an editorial position for a blog.</p>
<p>His wife sounds like she has some real problems which is what I suspected from the onset when I first read this thread. However, Andrews sounds like he was pretty responsible financially until this new marriage and this housing situation when he bought a house he clearly could not afford. I agree that he was foolhardy and down right stupid to buy a house when simple math showed clearly that he could not pay the mortgage. But it also show how foolish the lenders were to let him qualify for that much money given those numbers. I remember I had trouble getting our first mortgage because I had a $30 past due amount on a store credit card that I had not realized was being charged for a purpose when I applied for it when buying the item and getting a discount for it. So I do think Andrews was clearly showing the fallacies of the banks in lending money to unqualified borrowers. However, most people who are in the most trouble from such situation have other issues out there as well, one being an inability to truly rein in expenses to meet a long term money shortage. We are trying to do this now, and believe me, it is so difficult. </p>
<p>One of our cousins bought a house with credit so bad that she should not have gotten a $1000 credit card. Little income, divorce situation and they qualified her for $400K. She took out a mortgage for half that amount and has been struggling to keep that house. She has creditors calling all of the time. I know the house alone was not her biggest problem, but why the heck would anyone have lent her what they did in her situation? </p>
<p>A book that would less focused and with fewer answers would be one on those who cannot curb spending even when they need to do so. When hair appointments and sales at Lord and Taylor become necessities. When the food bill cannot be cut. When the kids have to have their stuff. When we feel we have to celebrate when we don’t have the money. Or have the money but it should be directed elsewhere. A quandry many middle class and high income folks have often.</p>
<p>Here’s what Megan McArdle looks like</p>
<p><a href=“http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/05/Megan_McArdle_by_David_Shankbone.jpg[/url]”>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/05/Megan_McArdle_by_David_Shankbone.jpg</a></p>
![http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/05/Megan_McArdle_by_David_Shankbone.jpg[/url]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/05/Megan_McArdle_by_David_Shankbone.jpg%5B/url%5D){kind=link}
<p>Middsmith, what, no insulting guess at her size?</p>
<p>Midd, nothing will happen to Hoyt. McArdle is conservative, so fair game for the liberal New York Times to diss. </p>
<p>Cpt, I agree that the Andrews story should have made for an interesting article and book. But when he leaves out crucial facts, I wonder how much else of the article/book is false and misleading. I think it should be moved to the fiction area.</p>
<p>hmom5, she’s 6’2 and looks fantastic. My guess would be size 2 or 4. I approve.</p>
<p>I will give Andrews credit in that HE has not filed bankruptcy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I cannot imagine how skinny a 6’2" woman would be to wear a 2 or a 4. That is the size of a thin 5’6" woman (e.g., me, at 115 lbs.) Someone 8 inches taller wearing the same size would really be a beanpole.</p>
<p>Midmo, I have a 6 foot tall size 2/4 daughter. She’s no thinner than a same size girl who’s 5’2. It’s about bone structure, not height.</p>
<p>Cpt, people with income at Andrews levels can generally not have debt forgiving in bankruptcy, instead the court will just work out a payment plan. And from the article it would appear his only significant asset is funds in a qualified retirement plan, which can not be touched in bankruptcy or otherwise (this is what OJ Simpson was living on). While his wife was living with him she incurred expenses for the benefit of both of them (like cable, per the second BK filing, or his clothes, per the article), which WERE forgiven in her second bankruptcy filing. SHE could file BK because her income was less.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s really creepy, middsmith. Why do we need to know what she looks like, or what size she is, or whether you approve or not?</p>
<p>I don’t think any amount of scrimping on clothes or food would have made a difference in this situation – they simply took on too large of a mortgage.</p>
<p>The basic problem is that there are now four households to support where there were formerly only two. They could not afford the same lifestyle they had pre-divorce (Patty’s salary appears to be the only new income.) Divorce is very expensive.</p>