Demand without supply?

Jay Rosen stats that there may be a case of demand without supply. This caught my attention mainly because I did not know what he meant by this. After reading his post on the matter I can't help but agree with him. So much of the news is what happened, but not enough of it is the why it happened. I love that he brought up the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac situation. When I first heard about this, I only knew that there was a federal takeover of Fannie Mae (Federal National Mortgage Association) and Freddie Mac (Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation). That was the headline of the story on the news. They proceeded to follow that up with time lines on when they thought things would get done to help rebuild these companies. I am sitting there watching this, and the main thing I am wondering is why was there a federal takeover? I still really have no idea what the whole situation was about so after reading Rosen's comments about it I decided to find some information to better understand this. I went to Wikipedia and found the same problem I had when I first heard it, the first four paragraphs or so described what happened, but not why this happened. It was not until much later that I read the information I wanted to know. I think this is a continuing problem with news. There is a reason that everyone wants to know, but no one ever is able to or unwilling to tell. I think an effective change to news would including the why right after the headline. Suck them into the story with a headline, but tell them the reason right away, that way the viewers, or listeners, or readers will know the reason behind the action.