The Illusion of Balanced Reporting

I'd like to write briefly about how journalists operate, and why their methodology fails in the world of economic reporting.

First off, journalists are, by and large, clueless about finance and economics. If you don't understand some domain of knowledge, you end up resorting to clichés, half-truths, and "received wisdom".

Secondly, they are trained to give one "for", and one "against" argument. This gives the superficial illusion of unbiasedness but it's not relevant to the truth. (Any journalists care to interview some "flat-landers"?)

Thirdly, they fail every single time to appreciate the self-interest of certain groups in interpreting the data. (In the words of Warren Buffett, "Never ask the barber if you need a haircut.")

Inevitably, you end up with such glorified nonsense that people think that economics is hard. (It isn't! You just have to ask some difficult, crucial questions, and do some math that can typically be done without even resorting to a piece of paper.)