* Their coverage was easy to understand even though they were discussing the complicated nature of sub-prime loans and adjustable rate mortgages. * Did not touch on each player in the growth of this “bubble” – mention only the people who took out those loans (important to note that this is just one example and in other coverage they do mention mortgage brokers and, for example, it was briefly stated in one report that none of the most affected states had policies in place to prevent the existence of these toxic loans but there were 13 other states who did have such laws – although never CEOs or corporations’ roles… but this could be for many reasons, potentially including positive ones such as a desire to avoid assigning blame in a complex situation and to keep audiences away from surface “drama” and focused on the more important aspects of the issue) * Possibly in an effort to “show both sides” we see how NBC may have taken away from the strength and effectiveness of their coverage by discussing public sentiment and a poll of average citizens who believe everything is all okay…
We chose this specific source because it represented an early instances in which NBC remarked upon the housing bubble and possible outcomes, especially if the bubble were to burst. coverage effective in that it identifies the bubble and, more importantly, begins to reveal the possible damage that could result, citing evidence from two (presumably) knowledgeable economists; ineffective in that there is one everyday citizen source standing in for general population, her testimony is inadequate in presenting the general condition of the market, and the ending focus is on her optimistic testimony, as opposed to the economists’ more cautionary account, which proves to be accurate