Pretty funny.

I've been told that roughly 50% of journalists graduated in the bottom half of their class, so you never know who's reporting this stuff.

Hey, how'd you get ahold of my transcripts?!? [j/k]

But you forgot one. The George Carlin line: Think about how stupid the average person is and realize that half of them are stupider than that.

I am not a statistician but doesn't the report refer to two different numbers: the number of homes sold and the selling prices. The median of one doesn't necessarily imply the midpoint of the other.

To be fair, I think he was trying to explain what median price means. (And did it rather clumsily)

And did you know that 61.75% of all statistics are made up on the spot?

Jack -

No, the sentence in question says that half the houses sold for mre than the median price and half for less. Which is kind of the definition of median. It's redundant, and it's existence implies one of two things: CNN doesn't know what median means, or they assume their consumers don't.

That's really funny.

I laughed out loud when I read this, so thanks for that Josh. A good laugh is always worth having.
But I'm with Chip (above) - in the context of the article, it is pretty clear that the author is giving a definition of median, albeit rather clumsily.
Is the statistical use of "median" widely understood? How many 'In the Agora' readers could supply a definition?

Actually, probably far less than half of all journalists graduated in the bottom half of their class. Half of journalism majors would have, but many in the bottom half have probably gone into other professions than journalism (such as PR), either because they couldn't get jobs as journalists or decided they didn't like it anyway since they weren't that good at it.

"but many in the bottom half have probably gone into other professions than journalism (such as PR)"

What makes you think that people in the bottom half went into PR?

How does the market for new homes affect the prices of older homes? I hope to buy a house someday, and have no intention of buying new.

It depends on consumer tastes, the degree of substitutability, and factors peculiar to the areas where older homes are clustered. All other things being equal, a rising home market should lead to increased prices for old homes and new; if, however, new homes offer some qualities that older homes cannot deliver, the price of old homes may fall. Then, too, older homes may be in neighborhoods--or even cities--considered to be undesirable (see real estate prices in Compton circa 1960) and may thus fall independent of their qualities as homes. (The reverse also happens sometimes.)

Less market-driven is the role that zoning restrictions play in market prices. Many nicer older homes are in areas where home ownership is attenuated by government actions, driving down the price.

Housing bubble broke about six months ago. Major real-estate industry newsletters stated as much.

Sheesh, it took this long for the MSM to figure that out?