Mapping the Path to Your Credit Report

Credit Sesame

Wonder how your credit report is created? Sometimes it's best not to know how the sausage is made, but in this case some extra knowledge may be enlightening.

John Ulzheimer, a credit expert, worked with the Web site Credit Sesame to create a graphic map showing how various types of information make their way - or not - into your credit report.

In most cases, Mr. Ulzheimer said,  the credit bureaus - like Equifax, Experian and Transunion - receive information from institutions where you have accounts, like credit card issuers or home loans or student loan lenders. In industry lingo, these are known as “trade” or “tradeline” accounts, he said.

Those accounts make up the bulk of the information in your credit report. Institutions provide the data under agreement with the bureaus, in exchange for access to credit files so they can evaluate the creditworthiness of applicants. Institutions aren't legally required to report credit information - but if they don't, they lose the benefit of having access to credit reports.

When credit bureaus get customer data, he said, they generally audit it before posting it to your credit file, to help avoid errors and disputes. A batch of data with an unusually high proportion of delinquencies, for instance, might be sent back for double-checking.

When lenders seek your credit report in response to an application for a credit card or a loan, it shows up as a “hard” inquiry. Too many such inquiries may cause your credit score, which is based on information in your credit report, to dip.

Some inquiries don't affect your score, however. They include requests made as a result of applying for insurance or for service from a utility company, Mr. Ulzheimer said, and requests you make yourself for a copy of your credit report.

Some public records, like bankruptcy filings or federal tax liens, usually appear on your credit reports because the credit bureaus have electronic access to federal courts through the Pacer document system. But civil judgments filed with state and county courts may or may not show up on your report, since not all of those courts make such information available electronically. Credit bureaus may be able to find the information through database services, but its appearance in credit files is generally less consistent than legal information generated by federal courts. (In other words,  you may get lucky.)

Have you ever had a legal judgment appear on your credit report? What impact did it have?

Thursday Reading: Thoughts on $150-a-night N.Y.C. Hotels

A variety of consumer-focused articles appears daily in The New York Times and on our blogs. Each weekday morning, we gather them together here so you can quickly scan the news that could hit you in your wallet.

• Lapses at big drug factories add to shortages, and danger. (National)
• University of Phoenix closes 115 locations. (National)
• Student loan borrowers average $26,500 in debt. (National)
• Multivitamin use linked to lower cancer risk. (National)
• Buy Yelp reviews, get a black mark. (Business)
• An easy, but pricey, way to back up data. (Business)
• A Rachel Ray food truck for the dogs. (Business)
• Sifting through the app morass, with a little help. (Business)
• Knowing when it's time to upgrade your gadgets. (Business)
• Updating a tiny kitchen. (Home)
• Finding a ‘breakup bed.' (Home)
• Housing prices and income inequality. (Economix)
• AOL's got mail, now with Alto. (Bi ts)
• Writers advise on avoiding Internet distractions. (Bits)
• Brother's small, but all-in-one, printer and fax. (Gadgetwise)
• Set your own password reminder. (Gadgetwise)
• Get up. Get out. Don't sit. (Well)
• Making sleep a childhood priority (or not). (Motherlode)
• Ask experts about ACT and SAT tests. (The Choice)
• Readers' views on sub-$150 hotels in Manhattan. (In Transit)

Proposed Credit Card Rules Aid Spouses and Partners

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is proposing to make it easier for stay-at-home wives and husbands - as well as unmarried partners - to get credit cards.

The proposed rule change, announced by the bureau on Wednesday, would let spouses and partners, age 21 or older who don't work outside the home, apply for credit based on shared income.

“When stay-at-home spouses or partners have the ability to make payments on a credit card, they should be able to obtain a card in their own name,” Richard Cordray, the agency's director, said in a prepared statement that also described the changes as “common sense.”

The move is an effort to fix an unintended consequence of the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act, known as the CARD Act, which became law in 2009. The law requires credit card issuers to evaluate an applicant's ability to make payments before opening a new credit card account. Under current regulations, issued by the Federal Reserve, a credit card issuer, in most cases, may only consider the individual applicant's income, even though the applicant has access to money the spouse or partner earns. (Previously, applicants could apply using total “household” income.)

The requirement was meant, in part, to protect students from getting into trouble with credit card debt, but it also ended up making it difficult for others to get credit cards. The agency's proposed fix would allow applicants who are 21 or older to rely on income “to which they have a reasonable expectation of access” when applying for a credit card.

Mr. Cordray, had indicated last month that the agency would soon make a proposal, but it was unclear how any change might affect same-sex couples. Since same-sex marriage is only recognized in a handful of states, the inclusion of “partners” in the proposed change is significant for gay couples, since the proposal doesn't rely o n marital status.

The proposal applies to credit card applicants “regardless of marital status,” the bureau said, but it expects that the change will especially benefit nonworking spouses or partners “who have access to a working spouse or partner's income.”

The agency is seeking public and industry comments on the proposal over the next two months. (One potential issue to be considered, according to the agency's proposal, is its impact on stay-at-home spouses who are under age 21.)

Do you think the change makes sense? Tell us how this could affect you.

Newsweek to Cease Print Publication at End of Year

Ruth Fremson/The New York Times Tina Brown, founder of the Daily Beast Web site and the driving force behind its merger with Newsweek, announced the move on the Daily Beast site.

9:28 a.m. | Updated Newsweek, the weekly magazine that for decades summarized the news for households across the United States but struggled to maintain relevance in the Internet era, announced on Thursday that it would cease print publication at the end of the year.

Tina Brown, founder of the Daily Beast Web site and the driving force behind its merger with Newsw eek, announced the move on Thursday in a message on the Daily Beast co-written with Baba Shetty, the recently hired chief executive.

“We are announcing this morning an important development at Newsweek and The Daily Beast. Newsweek will transition to an all-digital format in early 2013. As part of this transition, the last print edition in the United States will be our Dec. 31 issue,” Ms. Brown said.

The all-digital version of the magazine will be called Newsweek Global and operate on a paid subscription model. The name Newsweek, in spite of its trouble in print, still has value in terms of international licensing, as well as several conferences Ms. Brown has created.

Founded in 1933, Newsweek established a venerable place in the American media landscape, competing ferociously with Time magazine week in and week out to bring news to several million readers. In the pre-Internet era, before a constant stream of real-time informati on was available, the two magazines were viewed as among the best sources of news and analysis - an attractive product on the newsstand and a highly anticipated arrival in the mailboxes of subscribers.

But as the weekly publication cycle became outdated, both magazines struggled to adapt to the Internet age and establish a digital presence, while facing a decline in advertising and circulation.

In 2001, Newsweek had a total paid circulation of 3,158,480, according to the Audit Bureau of Circulation. But as of June of this year, circulation had fallen by more than half, to 1,527,157.

Losses at the weekly continued to mount even after the sale in 2010 to Sidney Harman, a 92-year-old audio magnate. He bought the property for a dollar and eventually, with Ms. Brown, merged it with the The Daily Beast, the Web site owned by IAC/InterActiveCorp.

The future grew grimmer still after Mr. Harman died in the spring of 2011. His heir s had said they would continue to support the ailing weekly, but last summer the family announced it would no longer invest in the magazine.

Losses at the magazine have been reported to be about $40 million a year, and Barry Diller, the chairman of IAC, which owns both The Daily Beast and Newsweek, made it clear he would not underwrite the losses forever.

“Our offices have been filled with consultants running around with lists of people, so we knew something was about to happen,” said one staff member, who insisted on anonymity because the person was not authorized to speak and was worried about potential layoffs. One of the consultants, the person said, was Jack Griffin, a former head of Time Inc.

“Regrettably we anticipate staff reductions and the streamlining of our editorial and business operations both here in the U.S. and internationally,” Ms. Brown wrote.

The announcement was timed, staff members said, to get ahead of next week's earni ngs call for IAC, when Mr. Diller was expected to be peppered with questions about Newsweek's losses.

In an interview with public radio's Marketplace, Mr. Diller made it clear he was not sentimentalist when it comes to business, saying if one doesn't work out, “Sell it, write it off, go on to the next thing.”

Navigating Medicare\'s Open Enrollment Period

Many of the elderly with Medicare do not realize it, but their health coverage has an annual open enrollment period, just as employer-based health insurance plans do. During this period, they can change their coverage options if they choose. This year's window opened this week, and remains open until Dec. 7.

Consumer Reports has helpful tips from its resident health insurance expert, Nancy Metcalf, to navigate the open enrollment period.

Medicare beneficiaries who are happy with their plans do not need to do anything, if they don't want to change. But it is still a good idea to check options, Ms. Metcalf advises, to make sure a version of Medicare is the best one in terms of cost and coverage. If, for instance, you have the original version of Medicare and pay extra for prescription drug coverage (so-called Part D coverage), you may want to make sure important medications you need are still covered under your plan, to avoid having to pay more for them.

If you have a Medicare Advantage plan - with private H.M.O.'s or P.P.O.'s that you may choose, instead of original Medicare - you should also check to see if your plan is still the best available option. The plans may include drug benefits or coverage for other health needs, like dental care, but benefits can change from year to year. You will want to make sure you can still afford the premium, and that your doctor is still included in the plan.

The Medicare.gov Web site has a tool that can help in comparing options for both Part D drug coverage plans and Medicare Advantage plans, based on where a person lives. To get the most out of it, you will need to know what type of plan you currently have. If you do not know, the tool lets you enter information, including your Medicare number, to find out. Or, you can call 800-MEDICARE (1-800-633-4227) toll free and ask. You will also need a list of your medications, along with details of dosage and frequency of use.

I tried out the tool for a family member who has Medicare Part D coverage and found it time-consuming to enter all the necessary information. (Other writers for The Times have written about this in greater detail.) But the tool does let you store the information when you are done, so you can refer to it or update it in the future.

Are you or a loved one switching Medicare plans this year? Did you have any luck with the online tools?

Michael Savage Signs Deal With Cumulus Media

Michael Savage, the popular conservative radio host, has found a new home for his show, “The Savage Nation,” which went off the air last month after he won a legal battle to leave his former employer.

Cumulus Media Networks, which already has shows with Mike Huckabee and Geraldo Rivera, has signed a deal with Mr. Savage for the distribution rights to his show, the company said. It will be broadcast live each weekday from 9 p.m. to midnight Eastern time beginning Tuesday.

Before it went off the air last month, “The Savage Nation” drew about eight million listeners each week, according to Talkers magazine, making it the third largest talk program behind those with Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

Cumulus, which is based in Atlanta, operates 525 stations and syndicates programming to another 4,000. Mr. Savage's show will begin on a minimum of 20 Cumulus stations and could end up on hundreds more through syndication.

“The addition of Michael Savage is a milestone in our determined efforts to provide our listeners nationwide with the best programming in the business,” John W. Dickey, co-chief operating officer of Cumulus, said in a statement.

In late 2010, Mr. Savage, 70, sued Talk Radio Network, the former home of his show, to be released from his contract. In September, he won an arbitration ruling that let him exit the company and also awarded him more than $1 million, his lawyer said at the time.

“The turbulent times we live in give talk radio a new power,” Mr. Savage said in the statement on Wednesday. “This is the biggest move of my radio career and I look forward to reaching many millions of new listeners on their flamethrower signals.”

Ben Sisario writes about the music industry. Follow @sisario on Twitter.

In Debate, Crowley Found Herself Part of the Fray

Candy Crowley has presided over many a partisan free-for-all on her CNN talk show, but the town hall debate between President Obama and his Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, Tuesday night was one of a kind. Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney resembled cable news commentators, talking over each other, arguing over facts, and interrupting and sometimes ignoring Ms. Crowley.

“I just had flashbacks to, you know, when my children were young,” Ms. Crowley said Wednesday on the ABC show “The View.”

Ms. Crowley said on CNN Wednesday morning that she did not feel targeted by either candidate. But many viewers sensed otherwise, continuing a trend that was plainly visible during the first presidential debate on Oct. 3, when the candidates tried to run over the moderator Jim Lehrer of PBS, defying the very debate rules that were negotiated by their campaigns. Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Representative Paul D. Ryan did the same during the vice-presidential debate on Oct. 11, moderated by Martha Raddatz of ABC. At all three sessions, the moderators have briefly had to double as debaters and join the fray - just like the hosts on cable TV.

Indeed, trampling the debate format has seemed like a part of both sides' strategy.

During discussions about the auto bailout and gas prices, Mr. Romney talked over Ms. Crowley's attempts to change the topic. When each man tried to refute the other's comments about the deficit, Mr. Obama looked at Ms. Crowley with concern about his time allotment, and she told him, “We're keeping track, I promise you.”

Most notably, during a discussion about the attack on the diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, Mr. Obama said that he used the words “act of terror” one day later and Mr. Romney contradicted him - then both candidates looked toward Ms. Crowley for an intervention.

She provided it, fact-checking Mr. Romney and saying that Mr. Oba ma did say the words “act of terror” a day after the attack. She added that Mr. Romney was right to say that the administration initially characterized the attack as a spontaneous reaction to an online video.

Afterward Ms. Crowley was praised by many journalists for conducting a real-time fact-check, but her decision was criticized by some conservatives as inappropriate. Conservative commentators also complained that she picked questions that benefited Mr. Obama more than Mr. Romney and that she interrupted Mr. Romney much more often than Mr. Obama.

Mr. Romney, on the other hand, also interrupted Ms. Crowley repeatedly - and risked looking like a bully during a debate that was characterized by repeated appeals to the millions of women who were watching. Ms. Crowley was the first woman to moderate a presidential debate in 20 years.

“Moderators are like umps and refs - sooner or later everyone is unhappy with them,” said Tom Brokaw, who helmed the tow n hall debate between Mr. Obama and John McCain in 2008. “That's exacerbated in part because the rules are never entirely clear and the candidates go on stage determined to bend them to their advantage.”

The rules this year, outlined in a 21-page memorandum of understanding signed by lawyers for the two candidates, specified that the candidates could not pose direct questions to each other. But Mr. Romney asked Mr. Obama several questions on Tuesday, including one, “Mr. President, have you looked at your pension?” that allowed Mr. Obama to quip: “I don't look at my pension. It's not as big as yours.”

The rules also specified that Ms. Crowley was not supposed to ask follow-up questions, yet often she did in one form or another. Neither Ms. Crowley nor the private group that hosts the debates signed the memorandum.

Some of Ms. Crowley's critics pointed out on Wednesday that Mr. Romney spoke for three minutes fewer than Mr. Obama. Mr. Romney did, h owever, say nearly 500 more words than Mr. Obama during the debate.

Ms. Crowley did not respond to an interview request on Wednesday, but she said on “The View” that the debate producers told her through an earpiece that “the president's five minutes over Mitt Romney; you need to let Romney speak some more,” and that as a result she did.

Bob Schieffer of CBS, who will moderate the final presidential debate on Monday, said there was no question that the candidates this year had been more combative with the moderators than in the past. “It is the golf course we play on now,” he said nonchalantly.

He said the format for his debate - which calls for the candidates to be seated at a table, as the vice-presidential candidates were last week - might make it easier for him to stay in control of the conversation. With that format, he said: “I think it is just easier to keep them on point. But we'll see.”

2nd Debate Also a Ratings Hit, Drawing 65.6 Million At-Home Viewers

The second debate between President Obama and Mitt Romney reached nearly as many people as the first debate, according to Nielsen, reflecting robust and sustained interest in the presidential election three weeks before Election Day.

Nielsen said 65.6 million viewers watched the Tuesday night town hall format event on television at home, down just 2.4 percent from the debate on Oct. 3. Untold millions more watched the two debates on TV sets in public places and watched on computers, phones and tablets, but those viewers are not counted in Nielsen's totals.

Fox News, with 11.1 million viewers during the debate, enjoyed the biggest audience in its 16-year history on Tuesday. The cable channel has hit 11.1 million viewers just once before: during the vice presidential debate between Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Sarah Palin in 2008.

Two broadcast networks, NBC and ABC, drew more total viewers than Fox News, NBC with 13.8 million and ABC with 12.4 million. CBS had about 8.9 million viewers, CNN had 5.77 million and MSNBC had 4.87 million.

Though the total TV viewership was lower on Tuesday than it was two weeks ago for the first debate, some online sources said they saw an increase in traffic. NBCNews.com served up about 320,000 live video streams on Tuesday night, 30 percent more than it did during the first debate.

There tends to be one debate each presidential election cycle with a town hall format, where voters ask questions of the candidates. The town hall debate between Mr. Obama and John McCain in 2008, similarly held on a Tuesday night, drew 63.2 million viewers on TV at home, according to Nielsen. The town hall in 2004, held on a Friday night, drew 46.7 million.

Warner Brothers Wins Legal Case Over Rights to Superman

LOS ANGELES â€" A judge on Wednesday handed Warner Brothers a major victory in its quest to defend its Superman franchise, ruling that heirs of the comic book hero's co-creators have no right to seize control of half of the lucrative property.

The 18-page decision, issued late Wednesday by Judge Otis D. Wright II of Federal District Court here, pertains to a lengthy effort by the heirs of the Superman co-creator, Joseph Shuster, to recapture rights to the character from Warner. A judge ruled in 2008 that an interest in Superman should revert to the heirs of the character's other creator, Jerome Siegel. Congress rewrote copyright law in 1999, allowing heirs to reclaim prior copyrights under certain conditions.

But Judge Wright ruled that the Shuster heirs were different from the Siegels. The Shuster heirs cannot reclaim rights to the character because of an agreement made in 1992, shortly after Mr. Shuster died, he said. In that agreement, Mr. Shuster's sister , Jean Peavy, forfeited rights in return for Warner's settling of her brother's debts and payment of $25,000 a year for the rest of her life. Judge Wright found that the contract “fully settles” the matter.

“By taking advantage of this opportunity, she exhausted the single opportunity provided by statute to the Shuster heirs to revisit” the copyright issue, Judge Wright wrote of Ms. Peavy. He added that the president of DC Comics in 1992 gave Ms. Peavy an “admonition” that the contract she was about to sign would “fully resolve any past, present or future claims against DC.”

Ms. Peavy's lawyer, Marc Toberoff, said in a statement, “We respectfully disagree with its factual and legal conclusions, and it is surprising given that the judge appeared to emphatically agree with our position at the summary judgment hearing.”

A Warner spokesman had no comment.

Wednesday's ruling allows Warner and DC Comics t o move forward with plans to mine Superman as they see fit. A blockbuster-style movie, “Man of Steel,” is set for release in June and the studio hopes to make sequels.

But the decision does not mean the legal wrangling for Superman is over. The executor of Mr. Shuster's estate could appeal. Warner itself is appealing the 2008 ruling that granted rights to the Siegels; a hearing is scheduled for early next month.

Mr. Toberoff, who also represented the Siegels, has built a reputation in Hollywood for helping people claim ownership of old television shows, films and comic book properties. He has scored a number of victories, including one over Warner involving ”The Dukes of Hazzard.” But his critics, including lawyers who represent the big studios, have long complained that he exerts too much control over his clients - an issue central to Warner's complaint.

This post has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: October 18, 2012

An earlier version of this story stated that the lawyer for Jean Peavy could appeal Wednesday's ruling. It is the executor of Joseph Shuster's estate that could appeal the ruling.