Crisis hipotecaria: ¿los medios cómplices?
Continúa el debate (1, 2) sobre si los periodistas cumplieron o no su función informativa al hilo de la crisis hipotecaria. Danny Schechter, editor of Mediachannel.org, acusa en Editor & Publisher a los medios de "cómplices" al aceptar anuncios de intermediarios financieros en los que se animaba a los ciudadanos a contratar hipotecas basura:
"Most of the coverage has been relegated to not widely read business sections that focus on the ups and downs of the markets and the way the collapse of these arrangements have affected the fortunes of CEOS and business enterprises, not citizens, consumers and most of all homeowners, many of whom are or will be losing their homes."Todo el artículo, aquí.
"There is more to this very sad failure. Many newspapers and TV outlets were complicit. They accepted and made tons of money carrying slick and often deceptive advertising for shady mortgage lenders and credit card companies encouraging readers and viewers to accept more debt. Some major newspaper are tied into local real estate syndicates and get kickbacks from sales tied to their extensive advertising of homes for sale.
Was there a conflict of interest perceived in taking these ads—which were important sources of revenue in a soft ad market---and producing watchdog journalism warning of the dangers of buying into subprime loans and other injurious products?"
.
Y una curiosidad revelada por HerminioJF: pese a lo que se suele pensar (yo, el primero) el "primer salmón blanco" no fue La Gaceta, sino 
