The WSJ tells us that "economists are giving up on the idea that the U.S. housing slump will be quick and relatively painless." It is good to see that economists' forecasts are moving closer to reality.
However, the question remains why did so many economists fail to recognize the severity of the housing slump (they are still seriously underestimating it)? And, the important question for the WSJ and other major media outlets is why do they rely almost exclusively on economists who were wrong as sources for their articles on the topic?
There's too much at stake this November for us to quit. As we navigate another presidential election year, thoughtful independent journalism is more important than ever. We're committed to bringing you the latest news on what's really happening across the country this election season, shining a light on the stories corporate media overlooks and keeping the public informed about how power really works in America.
Quality reporting doesn't come for free, and we don't have corporate backers to rely on to fund our work. Everything we do is thanks to our incredible community of readers, who chip in a few dollars at a time to make what we do possible. This month, we're trying to raise $50,000 to help fuel our election coverage, and we've fallen behind on reaching our goal. Any amount you give today will bring us closer to making our reporting possible—and a generous donor has agreed to match all online donations, so your impact will be doubled.
