Golodryga dismissed the idea out of hand. "A lot of people are worried about that, "she said. "The fact that Obama won was something that was really factored into the market, going back a few months ago. Remember the market is a forward looking indicator. Right now, we're just dealing with these really, really bleak numbers coming out regarding the economy. And there's also profit-taking as well."
Forbes.com was one of the only media outlets to analyze the situation differently. Steve Schaefer, Markets Reporter for Forbes was "Looking for the 'Obama Effect'" in his Nov. 5 article. According to his analysis, the market's dive was somewhat related to Obama.
"Wall Street tanked Wednesday, as investors fixated on weak economic indicators and pulled the prior session's gains off the table. The market was also beginning to visualize what a Barack Obama presidency will mean for business, after the Illinois senator won Tuesday's election," Schaefer wrote.
But Schaefer cautioned against reading "too much into Wednesday's trading." Schaefer's story admitted that certain types of businesses might be "at risk" under Obama, including tobacco, "Big Oil," brokers, pharmaceuticals and others.
Network reporters should have been reading The Wall Street Journal, which had been sounding alarms about the corruption and financial danger of the lenders' practices for more than six years. The Journal has run at least 29 editorials or op-eds exposing the two businesses for political connections, preferential regulation, and Enron-like "cooking" of the books.
"The Washington political class has nurtured and subsidized these financial beasts for decades in return for their campaign cash and lobbying support," said one Journal editorial on July 12. That editorial also pointed out the lack of reporting on the issue saying, "Maybe the press corps will even start reporting how this vast confidence game could happen."
The Journal wasn't alone. The Washington Post said on July 14, "Though the implosion of investor confidence in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac last week was sudden, the worries driving it have been the subject of countless warnings over many years."
That Post article explained that the two entities had too much debt and not enough capital, operating "with financial cushions that were too thin to support their far-reaching financial risks." This was something former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan told lawmakers in 2004, according to the Post. Greenspan argued for "preventive action" "sooner rather than later."
After Fannie and Freddie failed some in the media blamed free markets, but both Investor's Business Daily and The Journal explained that it was socialism that created the problem: "We haven't suddenly become socialists. What taxpayers need to understand is that Fannie and Freddie already practice socialism, albeit of the dishonest kind. Their profit is privatized but their risk is socialized," said a July 12 Journal editorial.