Mike Wallace’s passing, the end of quality TV news in America? Should bankruptcy be allowed for student loan debt? Telecom giants aim to unplug landlines. Dear (sex) diary...
Mike Wallace’s passing, the end of quality TV news in America?
Mike Wallace, the “60 Minutes” interrogator famous for his adversarial interview style and hard-hitting journalism, passed away Saturday at the age of 93. As friends, colleagues and pundits remember his many accomplishments, some are wondering if his passing marks the end of quality television news in America. In an essay about Wallace, “60 Minutes” correspondent Morely Safer wrote, “Wallace took to heart the old reporter’s pledge to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.”
Former CBS Evening News anchor Dan Rather said Wallace helped make TV news “…more investigative, more aggressive and relevant.” Wallace was well known for his “ambush” interview, a technique meant to surprise targets into revealing information they might not otherwise share in a planned interview. This merged elements of news and entertainment in a powerful and profitable way. At its peak in the early 1980s, “60 Minutes” had a weekly viewership of 40 million and CBS was considered the most formidable of network news providers for years.
But these days television news feasts on fame and opinion. It’s more common to see Sarah Palin co-hosting on the Today show and Piers Morgan fawning over Paris Hilton, than it is to see the likes of Mike Wallace challenging someone like Russian President Vladimir Putin. “CBS This Morning,” which was launched in January with Charlie Rose and Gayle King, has gotten good reviews for prioritizing news over sensationalism. But their ratings are down 10 percent from last season.
Are Americans no longer interested in “real” journalism? Or is it simply too expensive to be profitable? Do TV executives have an obligation to provide solid news in the public interest, regardless of ratings? What journalists and news outlets do you respect and trust the most – and the least – these days?
Guest:
Judy Muller, Professor of Journalism, USC Annenberg School for Communication; correspondent for SoCal Connected (a newsmagazine on KCET), NPR commentator and a former news correspondent for ABC News; author of ""Now This: Radio, Television, and the Real World"
Should bankruptcy be allowed for student loan debt?
If you’ve gone to college in the U.S., chances are, you know what it’s like to be saddled with student debt post-graduation. The burden of paying back those loans can wreak havoc on the finances of individuals for years and decades to come.
Now, the growing debt numbers are also posing a threat to the larger economy. Outstanding student loan debt reached an estimated $867 billion in the fourth quarter of 2011, according to a report released by the Federal Reserve Bank in New York in March. That eclipses what Americans owed on both credit cards and auto loans. More recently, a report from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) put the amount owed on both federal and private student loans at more than a trillion dollars.
Congress has tried to tackle this growing student debt “crisis” by enacting various protections aimed at helping borrowers avoid default, including cutting interest rates and allowing for income-based repayment. But some say more needs to be done. Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) would like to make it possible for students who take out loans from private lenders, to be able to discharge their debt in bankruptcy. Durbin introduced a bill in May that would eliminate a 2005 provision that prohibits privately issued student loans from being dischargeable. Critics say this would result in higher interest rates, which would impact all student borrowers, and that the real issue is the rising cost of a college education.
Brett Weiss, Chung & Press law firm bankruptcy lawyer and partner, said discharge should be allowed, but only in certain cases. "You clearly don't want to allow someone to go to a 4-year college, get a degree and turn around the day after graduation, and be able to get a bankruptcy discharge," he continued.
According to Weiss, people's career goals change, or their professions change and render learned skills obsolete. Those are the students who need dischargeable loans.
Stanford University professor of law G. Marcus Cole said what sounds like a good idea could eliminate the whole market of student loans.
"Student loans are fundamentally different than any other kind of borrowing that takes place in our society. When you borrow for a mortgage to buy a house, that mortgage is supported by both your income and the value of the house that you're buying," he explained. "Student loans are basically a situation where a student who typically has no assets and no current income goes to a lender and says, 'I'm going to promise to pay you in the future, out of my future higher income, for the loan that you're giving me today."
With dischargeable loans, the risk that lenders would not receive the money they originally lent would increase. Cole added that investors wouldn't see the sense in lending to students anymore.
But how much good is maintaining the market if the debt is too high to be repaid? One KPCC commenter said he was swamped with $300,000, and though a series of bad decisions led to his predicament, Weiss questioned the worth of continuing to punish students like him.
"It is appropriate to allow the discharge ability of that type of student loan debt. It's never going to be paid," Weiss said. "Do we want to have this individual drop out of the economy, not be able to buy a house, not be able to buy a car, work in the cash economy, not pay taxes ... does that benefit us all?"
Cole maintained that the student loan market must remain open, whether that takes increased responsibility from both lenders and students taking out loans.
"We're trying to create a system where people who don't have current resources can build their human capital to be able to participate in a more sophisticated economy, so we want this kind of lending to take place," he said.
From the phones:
Lindsay from Pasadena said she sympathizes with those racked with debt, but asked students to take responsibility of their own financial burden. "I chose a field in anthropology that's not lucrative," she said. "I made it a priority to pay my student loans back from graduate school because it was a debt that I owed in gratitude to the government and private organizations for helping me get that education and opportunity."
Laurie from Burbank took the same stance, and said she's about to graduate from school without any student loan debts. "I'm a little resentful when I hear people want to complain about having such a huge debt, because there are other alternatives, although they take a lot of time and a lot of energy."
She added that she would even purchase the second or third editions of textbooks to save money.
Julie from Culver City said she wants to pay back her withstanding debt of $120,000, but doesn't have the means to.
"I signed on the dotted line. I would like to pay it back. The problem is my lenders have absolutely no motivation to work with me to give me a repayment schedule that's actually realistic." According to Julie, the banks have absolutely no reason to help, because her parents cosigned the contract. She suggested that schools tuition increases aren't fair in the down economy, leaving her helpless with her debt.
"Schools really need to be called upon to answer why tuition has been rising so out of control. My tuition when I left was $10,000 more per year than the first year that i started – for seemingly absolutely no reason," she said. "Lucrative jobs didn't exist when I graduated."
Edith in Downtown L.A. said students should be able to pay what they take out, but offered a creative solution for those in trouble, "in a job, in an area that's under-served, underprivileged, that kind of thing, in exchange for a portion of that student loan to be forgiven."
So, what’s the best way to ease the student-debt burden? Should borrowers who’ve made a good-faith effort to repay their loans be able to pull the bankruptcy rip cord on student debt? Or would escaping repayment through bankruptcy cause other problems that should be avoided? And what, if anything, can be done to make higher ed more affordable to all?
Guests:
G. Marcus Cole, Professor of Law, Stanford University; Testified at Senate Judiciary Committee (subcommittee) hearing on this topic March 20, 2012
Brett Weiss, Bankruptcy Lawyer & Partner, Chung & Press law firm based in Greenbelt, Maryland; Maryland State Chair, National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys
Telecom giants aim to unplug landlines
AT&T and Verizon, among other phone providers, are trying to end their 99-year old universal service obligation known as “provider of last resort," according to research by Reuters.
The legal right to landline telephone service in almost every home has been a guarantee historically -- although it's one fewer Americans are signing up for. Now the major service providers are drafting new rules to end that commitment due to high costs for the company.
They say the telecommunications industry is a competitive one and major companies can only flourish by seeking the best customers in the biggest markets. An antiquated system could hold them back from higher profit margins.
Cell phone providers such as Sprint, T-mobile and even the divisions of AT&T and Verizon that carry cell service are not subject to universal service and are free to explore the areas they find profitable. People who rely on the universal service will be forced to use one of three options for their telecommunications needs, all of which entail some sort of newer piece of technology like a cell phone or computer as well as buying the internet or cell phone provider services from one of the major companies.
Should those who don’t use cell phone or internet services be forced to buy new equipment they don’t want? Are landlines a necessity anymore? Is this the end of the landline forever?
Guest:
David Cay Johnston, Reuters Columnist; investigative journalist and author; Winner of the 2001 Pulitzer Prize for Beat Reporting; Distinguished Visiting Lecturer, Syracuse University College of Law and Whitman School of Management
Dear (sex) diary
Sex is the one subject guaranteed to illicit raised eyebrows, flushed cheeks and even an embarrassed giggle – and not just from teenagers. Adults can also be a little shy when it comes to sharing their bedtime habits. Yet one journalist has spent the last four years collecting over two thousand stories of what goes on behind the closed doors - and between the sheets - of America's homes.
Compiled into one toe-curling volume, The Sex Diaries Project: What We're Saying About What We're Doing by Arianne Cohen explores the sexual preferences and peculiarities of the young, the old, couples, singles and confirmed celibates.
Why are we so embarrassed about discussing sex? How do we differ from other sexually active people around the world? Could our own sex lives be more exciting if only we would discuss them with others? How do you respond when a friend decides to share a little too much information about their private lives?
GUEST
Arianne Cohen, author of “The Sex Diaries Project: What We’re Saying About What We’re Doing” (Wiley) and regular contributor to The New York Times, Elle, Marie-Claire and The Guardian