Motley Fool columnist rips on NAR, David Lereah and the MSM. Gee, sound familiar HP'ers?

I think you'll see the MSM pick up on what the masses are starting to believe - that the NAR is a corrupt untrustworthy organization, that the corrupt David Lereah should never be quoted again without a disclaimer, and that the MSM itself is full of lazy reporters, like Catherine Reagor of the Arizona Republic, whose idea of journalism is to report a number, then rush to the most biased sources they can find for a quote without exposing their bias. What a joke.

There's nothing funnier or more satisfying (for me, at least) than watching the National Association of Realtors (NAR) change its tune these days. The latest news release from this sunny-Jim industry group finally fesses up to its past fiction, but even when it admits the bubble's going to pop, it can't muster the courage to just come out and say it.

Nope, according to the news template the NAR released to the press on June 6, "The housing boom has ended, but sales at historically healthy levels will continue."

Wow, sounds great! What about all those poor HGTV-addled suckers -- oops, I mean investors -- who've been buying property on interest-only ARMs with the hopes of flipping it for an easy profit?

I hope all those people out there who leveraged themselves up to their eyeballs with risky loans to get into the market are going to be greatly comforted by the "long-term affordability" their homes may offer the buyers of the future.

So, yeah, the NAR is full of it and will spin the numbers any way it can to keep up the pleasant fiction that all is well. But the cracks began to show in subsequent remarks from NAR "Chief Economist" David Lereah. The head outfit that ridiculed the idea of a housing bubble for years is now crying for Ben Bernanke to bring it back

No, the real problem here is the uncritical press out there, which is all too happy to pepper every contrary indicator or bearish remark with an NAR official's informed-sounding bubble denial. Never mind if what the NAR folks are saying doesnt seem to make sense (or contradicts what they said just a few months back).

Hey, opposing viewpoints give the appearance of objectivity, and they're an easy way of pretending to have looked for truth. It keeps your editor off your back, and if people out there get burned on account of your waffling reportage, no one can say they weren't warned. Look, here's the quote from the other guy!