Why does this all bug me so much? This article should have had the headline along the lines of "UNWISE REAL ESTATE SPECULATORS GET COMEUPPANCE AS MARKET CORRECTS." From what I could tell, those are the facts of the article. These poor people bought a dime-a-dozen tract house at a time when they lacked job stability; remodelled in a short-sighted manner and with an extravagant budget; and have unrealistic expectations of the profit they should be making on their house, which they didn't really seem to think of as a home but was more of an investment, and an unwise one at that.
But instead of using this article to truly inform and educate, it's used to support a sensationalist and fear-mongering headline that improperly feeds hype about the real estate apocalypse. I mean, if that's what the Chronicle Real Estate editor believes is happening, fine--it's the editor's job to give readers evidence that SUPPORTS this. But don't take an article that tells a totally different story, give it the wrong, scarier headline, and try to get us to swallow it. It's cynical and misuses the power of the printed word--especially since the Chron editors may know that the "sexy" headline that supposedly proves all the real estate naysayers right will make those naysayers pick up the paper, skip that entire article, and head straight to the (undoubtedly lucrative for the Chron) Open Homes guide because, "Finally," they think, "we can afford a house in the Bay Area because it's such a bad time to sell!" (Which, as they'll then see in the Open Homes guide, is actually still not true.)
It just bugs me that, in wrongly labelling a true (and badly edited) story, they are in effect telling lies.
OK, maybe I'm ranting now. It's late and I haven't been editing this post too closely. Good night.