- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Look on any American newspaper's web site, especially the business section, and it won't take you too long to find a link to one of those "teaser" mortgage ads. Ditto for just about any investment-oriented consumer web site. The very low monthly payment in the ad reflects a 1% rate and is good for only the first monthly payment, after which the rate goes up to one that is very profitable for the lender. Chances are the borrower will never recover from such a loan and will end up losing his or her house in a foreclosure. These types of ads are still running today. I saw this ad on the Washington Post's web site this morning and clicked on the link to the mortgage broker. In fact, a similar ad from the same broker, for a slightly different type of home loan, is running at the top of my Salon page right now as I type. Does freedom of press also mean freedom to run deceptive ads as well? Is any ad a good ad as long as someone makes money? I would lump all these deceptive real estate ads into the same category as those direct to consumer drug ads. But while the drugs ads could end up contributing to your early death (think of the Vioxx ads which ran on TV a number of years ago), the deceptive mortgage ads could end up merely destroying you financially. Both are not in the consumer's interest. But it's OK, as long as someone is making money somewhere in the grand scheme of things. So don't just blame Wall Street, or the real estate agents, or the lenders for our mortgage fiasco. The press deserves at least some of the blame as well.
