Tag: Dallas Morning News

  • Two Papers In One

    Two Papers In One

    A few years ago I decided to stop watching the news. Turned out to be one of the smartest things I’ve done in a while.

    I’m less worried, my mind seems to work better, I get more done, etc.

    I highly recommend it.

    And don’t worry about being “uninformed.” The way we’re constantly bombarded by media, you can’t really avoid it altogether. I’ve found that if something is big and important enough to actually matter, it will find its way to you.

    So all you really miss is the noise. Give it a try for a month and see how you feel.

    It’s easy to go back to the old way if you don’t like it.

    One exception is that I still look at the Dallas Morning News website a few times a week. I enjoy their sports coverage and also want to see if anything’s happening locally I need to know about.

    But if I’m not careful, I start reading headlines and get pulled down the rabbit hole of thinking the paper is nowhere near what it once was in terms of being a balanced source.

    It can be entertaining though. Pretty often you’ll see what I think of as the “two papers in one” effect.

    One day you’ll read about the “housing shortage” in DFW.

    The next, you’ll see headlines saying builders are slowing down because inventory’s piling up and nothing’s moving.

    So which is it?

    To be fair, it’s more complicated than that.

    DFW isn’t one market — it’s dozens of sub-markets layered on top of each other. Some areas are on fire. Others are cooling. And sometimes they trade places within a few months.

    In some areas, local regulations and land costs can make it nearly impossible to build housing at a price that fits the budget of a middle-class family. So there’s a “shortage.”

    In others, the relative affordability and better schools make it where houses almost can’t be built fast enough — at least until interest rates rise and put the brakes on it. So there’s a “slowdown.”

    In other words, market reality can be very different just a few miles away.

    That’s why broad headlines are almost useless when you’re trying to make a real decision. They can give you a general sense of the climate, but they can’t tell you what’s happening on your street, your corner, or your tract.

    If you own land, a lot, or a development site, your situation could be totally different than what the media portrays.

    That’s where talking with someone who works these deals every day actually helps — because “the market” isn’t one big story.

    It’s a bunch of small ones playing out at the same time. Written by increasingly young reporters who lack the context to really report on the market. Anyone old enough to have seen a Cowboys Super Bowl Championship can tell you today’s rates aren’t particularly high by historical standards. And that what passes for a slow market today would be a roaring success 15-20 years ago.

    Is it ever a bad time to talk to a real expert who shoots straight and knows the local dirt?


  • Watch Their Hands, Not Their Lips

    Watch Their Hands, Not Their Lips

    When someone publicly says it’s not about the money, what’s the safest bet?

    It’s about the money.

    That’s not cynicism, that’s just pattern recognition. Public statements are usually crafted for effect. They’re meant to play well with fans, reporters, or shareholders.

    Which means they’re often more about signaling virtue than revealing truth.

    Take the recent Micah Parsons contract saga. More than once, he said it wasn’t really about getting the most money. He tried to keep the focus on fairness, team, legacy. All fine words.

    But the outcome? He landed the highest average salary in NFL history for a non-quarterback.

    Record deal. Short enough term that, if he stays healthy, he could cash another monster contract in a few years.

    And good for him—he’s got a limited window to earn, and he’s maximizing it. That’s smart.

    The same thing shows up outside of sports.

    The Dallas Morning News insists it’s in the journalism business. On the surface, sure. But scratch it and you see a company really in the advertising and engagement business.

    And lately? It’s been in the business of selling itself.

    Shares were trading in the $4s. Hearst swooped in with a $16.50 offer—quadruple the price. Then another buyer stepped up with $20. Even better, right? Except the board recommended sticking with Hearst’s lower number.

    Don’t know why, could be good business reasons for that, I don’t have time to look.

    Cue the noble public statement from Robert Decherd:

    “I have long since ceased to view my holdings…as a financial asset. My sole objective is sustaining the journalistic quality and civic responsibility of the News.”

    Sounds lofty. But it also raises the obvious question: if it’s not about the money, why sell at all?

    That doesn’t make them villains. It just means you have to be clear-eyed about what game people are actually playing.

    I’ve said before, I’m not really in the brokerage business. I’m in the trust business. The difference is, I know what business I’m in. And maybe it’s self serving to play that up, but I think it’s important to know.

    Is it crazy to align with people who know who they are and where they are going?


  • If You’re Not In The Trust Business, You Won’t Be In Business For Long

    If You’re Not In The Trust Business, You Won’t Be In Business For Long

    Awhile back I saw a Dallas Morning News headline on the so-called bathroom bill.

    Technically correct, but framed so narrowly it made the issue sound like it only applied to a sliver of people. In reality, it applies to everyone.

    Why write it that way? I can’t say for sure.

    My guess: to agitate certain readers and boost clicks.

    That’s the business they’re in.

    Not the news business so much as the engagement business.

    I even messaged the public editor about it. Pointed out the headline was misleading. His reply? Evasive. Acted like he didn’t understand my question. I explained again. Still nothing.

    Maybe he was right that I wasn’t clear. I mean, I don’t write for my business every day.

    (wait, yes I do).

    Fast-forward to this week. Same public editor writes a whole piece about… typos in headlines. “Went” instead of “gone.” “Polices” instead of “policies.” Important, sure — but is that really worth a full column and public apology?

    It reminded me of Jesus taking the Pharisees to task for tithing on their mint and cumin while neglecting the weightier matters. Grammar matters, but it’s not the real issue.

    Then came the real eye-opener: a line about improvements. Now, 98% of stories are reviewed by an editor before posting. Good, right? Except the number used to be… 28%.

    Come again? A major metro paper, calling itself the “paper of record,” admitting it didn’t bother to review over two-thirds of its stories just 6-7 months ago.

    And we’re supposed to see that as progress.

    Their explanation was cost. I’m sure it was.

    But if you’re really in the news business, accuracy isn’t optional.

    And if you’re really in the trust business, you don’t brag about fixing a gap that should never have existed.

    That got me thinking about my own work.

    Most folks would say I’m in the brokerage business.

    And that’s true. But more than that, I’m in the trust business.

    You can get news anywhere. You can get a broker anywhere. Both are commodities.

    The only reason someone picks me is because they believe I’ll shoot straight and protect their interests.

    And if that sounds crazy in today’s world — maybe it shouldn’t.