I am a student at the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism, and this semester's required class for all New Media majors (more than a quarter of the graduating class) focuses on using multimedia to explore how the financial crisis is affecting New York's struggling middle class. So to correct the record, the topic of how the economic shockwaves affect the average New Yorker is very much a focus of current student work!

While OTM, as usual, has the best coverage of the coverage of the financial crisis, why do everyone a disservice by getting into the usual my eyes glaze over repartee. While the details may require rocket science, the basic issues are not that hard to explain, and the media could explain various issues to the public, some of whom may actually care. By perpetuating the MEGO repartee, the sainted Bob Garfield simply contributes to the problem. If $700B is not worth serious attention, what is?

only business people can cover business as journalists.

don't know any business people willing to live like bums in order to report.

In consideration of the Rosenberg case, it is important that we recognize that if the development of nuclear weapons by the Soviet Union was accelerated as a result of actions by members of our scientific, military, or intelligence communities, this may, in fact, have done a great service to the world. It is my position that nuclear war has been avoided for the past half century, in no small measure, because of the concept of "mutually assured destruction," the knowledge that if one power attacks another using such weapons, that they can and will respond in kind. I submit that it is this stand-off that has kept our planet alive and enabled us, as a civilization, to grow into the overwhelming responsibilities that come with the possession of such powerful technologies.

How can you possibly address "fundamental causes", as you said you were doing today, without asking why and how we designed the financial system to be vulnerable to destabalization?? Please get someone who thinks about complex systems and their structures making them responsive and resilient, and then unresponsive and unresilient, and have a real talk about our real problems.

I complained to you that the press wasn't addressing the causes and you tried. Thanks very much. Now I'd like you to ask the obvious open questions you don't think you already have an answer for. Please try again. Bounce some ideas off me and I'll point to a range of whole system questions you might explore.

The discussion with Dean Starkman came close to understanding the shortage of knowledgeable business reporters, but widely missed the mark. A single course on business journalism is not going to provide a person with the tools to understand derivatives or decipher the contents of SEC filings, which are indeed full of good story leads, if one has the knowledge and skills to understand and question the contents.

The source of the problem is how journalists are educated and trained. Instead of finding business students who can write well, media organizations look for people who can write well and might be able to learn about business. This is the same thing as having math teachers who have courses in how to teach mathematics, but have never taken calculus. Three business journalism credits in graduate school is no match for 64 graduate credits in business with several courses in economics, accounting, statistics, and financial analysis, let alone the additional education acquired to earn advanced designations and licenses such as the Chartered Financial Analyst, Certified Public Accountant or Certified Financial Planner.

We all be better served when media organizations hire more accountants, economists, and statisticians who write well, then give them incentives to go on to Dean Starkman's school.

Maria Markham Thompson, CPA, CFA
now turning 25 years of financial experience into a freelance financial writing career

What about the free press and OTM ignoring the Federal Reserve’s monopoly banking power?