I don't know if many of you saw this article, but a friend of mine, who's been strongly considering a significant investment in residential property in OKC called me to ask me about this over the weekend. It is kind of strange to have both the nations lowest unemployment rate and one of the nation's highest home vacancy rates. I have some possible explanations of my own, but I'm interested to hear what others have to say...

America's 10 sickest housing markets (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44005383/ns/business-real_estate/t/americas-sickest-housing-markets/#.TkLh6YJmNpg)

Maybe they should define 'vacant'. They must not be counting homes owned by banks because more than 10% of the homes in Las Vegas are owned by banks and no one is living in any of them.

I would wager that Dave Del Dotto has the definitive answer to that question.
(But I don't even buy lottery tickets.)

There was a rather strong rebuttal article in the Oklahoman on this, will see if i can dig it up.

ON EDIT: that was easier than I thought, here it is...
http://newsok.com/no-oklahoma-city-is-not-one-of-americas-10-sickest-housing-markets/article/3592138?custom_click=pod_headline_real-estate-housing-news

Yep. To sum up Richard Mize's column - the Wall Street 24/7 article is a piece of crap. This is what you get with new media - a bunch of content farm sites with unsubstantiated garbage that has no basis in reality.

This is what you get with new media...

Well, "old media" isn't infallible. And if we were to dismiss a whole medium for one shoddy article, print media wouldn't fare any better. In fact, you can say print media invented shoddy articles. :)

The good part about new media is that it is much more instantly accountable. TV and Newspapers can print the same lie over and over and people accept it. At least there is a lot more resources online to discredit the BS, while print's BS is put in the library and considered "historical record"... Which one is more damaging?

Not dismissing the whole medium. But the difference is with established media, you know who is credible and who is a fraud. I encourage people to hold established media accountable, and don't let them (including my paper) get away with what you perceive to be bad coverage. But with new media, especially these content farms, do you really know who is or isn't credible? Can any of you honestly say you're regular readers of Wall Street 24/7? Let's get honest - we all see these rankings pop up when they initially get someone's attention via a cable news website link, Yahoo, AOL, etc. I've seen OKC listed as one of the most dangerous places on Earth. I've seen it listed as "recession proof." I've seen it listed as a place where jobs flow, where the living is great, etc. I've seen it listed as having the most dangerous roads. All these lists, ultimately, are suspect.
As for "instant" accountability in new media... really? Who is holding Wall Street 24/7 accountable? True historians, by the way, do not consider newspapers to be pure "historical record." To do so would be folly.

I automatically assume that 75% of what I read and see in the media is biased or an outright untruth. Unless I get the same information for 2 or more disparate sources it is vapor. As far as any folks anywhere who use the term "Newspaper of Record" what a farce. I can remember when that term meant something. Now it too is vapor.

The Oklahoman impugning the journalism of another outlet- that's rich. Sally Kern does help keep traffic down. Thank her I suppose.

It's not The Oklahoman - it's me, Steve Lackmeyer. If you have a problem with me or my reporting, email me and let me know. I'll stand up for my work, and not worry about what's said about others. The Wall Street 24/7 report is nothing but garbage from a content farm, and I'll call that sort of thing out every time.

At ease Steve, you're cool. Are you going to do a piece on the bait&switch that happened with MAPS?

At ease Steve, you're cool. Are you going to do a piece on the bait&switch that happened with MAPS?

I'm sure he will if, and when, there ever is a bait and switch.

still in denial RC- Why'd they have to ram through a quick vote to change the timeline if there was no implied order of projects.A jr high deca club memeber could spot that one.

I'm looking forward to the day when it appears as if somebody, anybody, indicates they've ever really read what I've written, especially over at OKC Central. Anyway, back to the topic - the vacancy story is garbage, and whether you consider me a credible source or not, consider yourself warned when you read stories posted by content farms. They have no commitment to journalism whatsoever - their sole purpose is to get ranked high on Google, draw eyes and sell ads. That's it. They don't care about accuracy, keeping readers informed, etc.
If you think I'm in that category as well, then this thread is a lost cause. You may disagree w/ what editors decide is news - heck, I do too at times. But I don't own the paper, ink or the servers. I do promise though that I'm committed to doing the best job I can to keep the community informed. Same goes for Clifton over at the Gazette, Bailey over the Journal Record, Phil Cross over at Fox 25, Alex Cameron at KWTV, many more.

Thanks for the list of reliable reporters, Steve.

still in denial RC- Why'd they have to ram through a quick vote to change the timeline if there was no implied order of projects.A jr high deca club memeber could spot that one.

No denial here, a change in timeline is not bait and switch. If MAPS3 said they were going to build a convention center downtown and the council/mayor decided to spend all of the funds on the State Fairgrounds, that would be bait and switch.

So Mize's rebuttal covers part of the ground, but leaves me with a few questions. What the heck is the vacancy rate here? How does it compare to other cities? Was the methodology used by Wall Street 24/7 the same methodology used universally, or something unique? Was it used for every city they included in their list?

When Mize writes "Besides all that, there is no hint at how much vacancy is too much; some houses and apartments are always vacant; people move; plus, a look at rates of change in the vacancy rates over time, rather than a snapshot, would have made more sense," why doesn't he provide that information?

A rebuttal should say what the actual facts are, assuming the writer knows. It should not be limited to, "well this is a piece of crap because I wouldn't have written it this way."

I think if you read his column carefully, it indicates the figure is very fluid and he gave the variation range. If you have further questions about his column, feel free to contact him at richardmize@oklahoman.com

Yep. To sum up Richard Mize's column - the Wall Street 24/7 article is a piece of crap. This is what you get with new media - a bunch of content farm sites with unsubstantiated garbage that has no basis in reality.

YES!!! This remark is so true I had to break workplace policy, logon and give Steve a nod.

I'm looking forward to the day when it appears as if somebody, anybody, indicates they've ever really read what I've written, especially over at OKC Central. Anyway, back to the topic - the vacancy story is garbage, and whether you consider me a credible source or not, consider yourself warned when you read stories posted by content farms. They have no commitment to journalism whatsoever - their sole purpose is to get ranked high on Google, draw eyes and sell ads. That's it. They don't care about accuracy, keeping readers informed, etc.

Sounds a lot like Beck and Rush

Not dismissing the whole medium. But the difference is with established media, you know who is credible and who is a fraud. I encourage people to hold established media accountable, and don't let them (including my paper) get away with what you perceive to be bad coverage. But with new media, especially these content farms, do you really know who is or isn't credible? Can any of you honestly say you're regular readers of Wall Street 24/7? Let's get honest - we all see these rankings pop up when they initially get someone's attention via a cable news website link, Yahoo, AOL, etc. I've seen OKC listed as one of the most dangerous places on Earth. I've seen it listed as "recession proof." I've seen it listed as a place where jobs flow, where the living is great, etc. I've seen it listed as having the most dangerous roads. All these lists, ultimately, are suspect.
As for "instant" accountability in new media... really? Who is holding Wall Street 24/7 accountable? True historians, by the way, do not consider newspapers to be pure "historical record." To do so would be folly.

I know who is credible and who is a fraud online just as much as I do in "established media". You could use a fake name and it would make it just as credible as any other reporter as long as you always used the SAME fake name, so that there is a track record. In fact, it's easier to figure out online, because you can instantly access everything that author has written under that name.

The biggest problem is really with established media who operate with an assumption of credibility. I think more people approach new media with some healthy skepticism and it gets vetted more often and much quicker. That same skepticism should be applied just as often to established media, but due to the repetition of misinformation in established media, it clearly is not. And let's get honest - Fox News sued for the right to lie and won, yellow journalism is a term that began with newspapers, and just about EVERY established media outlet has an inherent bias that is inextricably tied to profit motive and political perspective. New media often has less of the former (which is good) and more of the latter (which is bad), but it's also often way more transparent about its motives. Old media kind of walks around like it is pure journalism, while simultaneously abandoning that to chase the ratings or catch the next splashy headline in an attempt to hold on to circulation for a week or two.

For example, we all know that the Oklahoman is protective of local business interests and is friendly to conservative political interests. This does lead to less scrutiny and carefully constructed articles that try hard not to injure those interests. That is what the Oklahoman is as a "source". It makes no difference that they have been printing papers and selling ads for a billion years. Their established status as a business does not affect their credibility either way. Their presentation of information does, and, again, it is in no way inherently less fallible than any other medium. In fact, its assumption of credibility is probably what gives it more damaging potential than any stupid list made by someone with a web server and a calculator.

All I am saying is that this "list" was indeed crap, but what led it to being crap is not a fault of the medium nor is it exclusive to that medium. We are way past the point of giving established media any kind of pass simply because of its market cap, its viewership, its circulation, or even just its age. At the end of the day, people who exclusively digest information from a selected group of established media sources are no better informed than people who get their information exclusively from new media. The brilliance of media today is that vetting information is easier than it ever has been and that is precisely because of new mediums that allow unprecedented access to vast amounts of information.

their sole purpose is to get ranked high on Google, draw eyes and sell ads. That's it. They don't care about accuracy, keeping readers informed, etc.

Apparently not, but are you saying this is the first concern of most of today's established media? That is, that in general it feels it is more important than viewership, circulation, and selling ads?

If you think my sole objective (or that of the other local reporters I named) is to get ranked high on Google, draw eyes and sell ads, that's your judgment. Ditto for whether we care about accuracy, keeping readers informed. I'm not going to get into a drawn out thread here where rocks are thrown from all direction and I'm going to try to hit them back. I've shared what I consider to the dangers of trusting content farms. If you think content farms are equal or better than locally produced journalism, good luck with that.

If you think content farms are equal or better than locally produced journalism, good luck with that.

I guess you didn't read what I said and I am sorry you think I am throwing rocks in your direction. I know you have a tendency to be defensive in media discussions and I was honestly trying to be sensitive to that. Do you really think I ever said content farms are better than locally produced journalism? That's just odd to me that you would take it that way.

You went after "new media" and I simply pointed out that established media, locally produced or otherwise, is far from infallible. Now if you think that your employer is not concerned with drawing eyes and selling ads, then you have never sat through their sales pitches. Obviously, your work is in line with that ends, but, trust me, if your work was journalistically impeccable but did not draw eyes for the end purpose of generating revenue through the selling of advertisements, trust me, they wouldn't be interested in it. And if you don't think it has a political opinion that guides its journalistic decisions, then we must be talking about a different paper. It has been known to put opinion right on the front page.

But, so what, that's what it wants to be and that's what it's readers want. But to insinuate that established media is somehow inherently above using content farm techniques to attract readership/viewership is just misguided. National and local publications are just as guilty of generating puff pieces and specious lists based on creative interpretation of data for the sole purpose of drawing hits, high serp rankings, viral attention, and, of course, increased ratings and circulation. And it often has nothing to do with providing accurate objectively researched information to keep the people informed. The funny thing is that when they're favorable, no one has a hissy fit, even if their techniques are just as questionable. When these "best places to live" or "best places to raise a family" rankings come out and they rank Oklahoma high without considering Oklahoma's poverty rate, infant mortality rate, educational deficiencies, or rate of uncovered children, no one writes an article saying "maybe we shouldn't have been ranked as high, when you consider all the facts in context".

Obviously, I never said that content farms are an inherently equally credible sources of information as any other source. I'm just saying that established media, be it locally produced journalism or nationally established powerhouses in traditional media, do the same thing, which is probably actually worse than when some no name fly by night website does it because there is no trust there to begin with. Established sources often abuse their established trust by either hiding behind it and saying their content is inherently of pristine journalistic integrity or using it to advance or protect an ideological position they claim not to have. If traditional media was at one pointy inherently above such questionable techniques (and history shows that it never really has been), then it has severely lost its way.

No, I'm not saying you're throwing rocks at me. I just know how these threads go. I think we've stated our thoughts here. People are taking these content farms seriously, and I'm basically advising don't do so.

No, I'm not saying you're throwing rocks at me. I just know how these threads go. I think we've stated our thoughts here. People are taking these content farms seriously, and I'm basically advising don't do so.

Unfortunately, too many people take these content farms seriously. Now what we have is an onslaught of grossly misinformed people. That can be a dangerous situation.

People are taking these content farms seriously, and I'm basically advising don't do so.

Good advice. And I am just saying that you shouldn't always take the established media at face value either.


Now what we have is an onslaught of grossly misinformed people. That can be a dangerous situation.

Very dangerous. Unfortunately, far more people are misinformed by bad information provided by established media each day than they are from content farms. Basically, and maybe all I should have said, BS from content farms is a problem, but BS from major established news outlets is a bigger problem.

....Basically, and maybe all I should have said, BS from content farms is a problem, but BS from major established news outlets is a bigger problem.
Amen.

(NOT intended to be throwing stones at my favorite reporter & the only reporter I have ever had dialog...Steve does an excellent job and really does endeavor to get to the bottom of things...just doesn't always get full cooperation from the powers that be)