Reportage

Years ago, my wife and I realized, more or less at the same time, that things get in the newspaper because they're unusual, or novel. You don't see articles about houses with indoor plumbing; you see ones about houses where there are fourteen bathrooms and two bedrooms. You don't see articles about intensively partisan politicians; you see ones about thoughtful, moderate ones (though I wonder about them, too; sometimes, I think, those articles are just puff pieces). But that style of reporting may be changing, because I've seen some articles that I had to read two or three times, just to be sure that I wasn't missing something. I wasn't.

Take the one that I saw in this morning's Washington Post. They were, in fact, reporting that when it comes to money, people are being cautious. If they get money, they don't rush out to spend it. They pay down debts, as they can. They don't go for the flashy things. They spend it on their lives. This, the Washington Post seems to feel, is worthy of a page one headline.

Huh?

That's exactly what I'd expect in an environment where money is hard to come by, where jobs are easy to lose, where you have a lot less confidence in the future than used to be the case. Normal people think that if they can't be confident of a continuing income stream, they'd better do what they can to limit their exposures, their liability. They'll buy things that they need, but not things that strike them as fripperies. If they don't need to spend, they won't. It's not exactly putting the spare cash under the mattress, but that's the general idea.

What part of that does the Washington Post find unusual?