This Cincinnati Enquirer editorial demonstrates the shallowness and bias of some media.   The editoral writers just take their talking points from advocacy groups.   The Payday Pundit takes them to task:

The Enquirer:  The Senate should pass a strong reform, but it should also make sure the market can offer options for well-regulated, low-cost, short-term loans.

The Payday Pundit:  “The market,” in the form of banks, credit unions and other finanical institutions, have been trying to develop alternatives to payday loans for years.  The Enquirer believes the Ohio State Senate can wave a magic wand and come up with a short-term loan product that’s better? 

The Enquirer:  There’s a legitimate need for these loans, but not when the loan terms outstrip borrowers’ ability to repay.

The Payday Pundit:  How does an industry stay in business loaning money to people who can’t repay?

The Enquirer goes on the cite a bogus North Carolina study that purports to prove that consumers weren’t hurt when payday lenders left the state.  At least that’s what the news release on the study said, but when you examine the study itself, it tells horror stories of people not buying medications and missing other important payments.

The Cincinnati Enquirer editorial writers live in the same elitist bubble as the payday lending industry’s critics.  They are condescending, self-righteous, and philosophical (as opposed to knowledgeable). 

There’s probably more wisdom in the National Enquirer than the Cincinnati Enquirer. 

Let the Enquirer know your thoughts at .