The Dismal Science

Economics is the study of what people do with what's available.

   Many journalists dislike writing about business and economics because they think it's "too hard."
   The topic may not be as juicy, dramatic, thrilling and exciting as crime or sports reporting, but it's no less important. Indeed, it can be far more important. For example, what can be more important than 50 million Americans out of work, a 20 percent unemployment rate, businesses large and small collapsing daily, families losing their homes and millions relying on soup kitchens for food, as a result of an economic collapse such as the Crash of 1929 and the Great Depression that followed, as well  as the Great Recession of 2008?
   Many journalists chase after the stories that people want to know, but ignore the stories that people need to know.
   People want to know who won the Big Game, or who was arrested, or which celebrity is dating which, or how the political candidates insulted and mocked their rivals.
   Those stories are easy to gather, and have an audience and readership eager to hear them. But is that news or gossip? Sometimes there's a thin line between the two.
   This is not to say that gossip isn't interesting. It is, and the news media's duty is to entertain as well as to inform. But many reporters claim they can't do stories on economics because they don't understand them, or they're too hard, or people aren't interested. However, it's a journalist's job to incite interest. Meanwhile, they take up the challenge of translating a politician's gobbledygook into plain language in order to entertain, interest and inform readers.
   Academics are no less skilled at perpetrating gobbledygook, yet the consequences are far more important. The difference is that politicians are more adept at entertaining an audience than are academics.
   At the same time, readers don't want to hear stories of impending disaster -- unless it's an earthquake or fire, or a crime far from home. So, like the boy who cried "Wolf!" reporters who quote economic predictions of recession are ignored. Unfortunately, they are later criticized when disaster does strike.
   Meanwhile, some self-serving politicians play on the fears of some, and promise to rescue the nation from the perceived, if imaginary, danger inherent in the more obscure comments of a few academics.
   Journalists sometimes fall into the same trap, reporting the more entertaining or dire warnings of politicians without the balance of clear academic understanding. In this case, the emphasis must be on the word "clear." Not all academics are, and that's what makes their pronouncements "dismal."
     But trying to make the pronouncements clear is too hard, some journalists complain. Actually, it's no more difficult than compiling and explaining the statistical batting averages and won/loss averages of baseball players.
   Economics also deals with statistics. It's up to journalists to explain them clearly.
   So why is Economics called "the dismal science"? Two reasons: It deals with potential losses as well as wins; recessions as well as prosperity. Secondly, many economists are dismal writers.
   But writing about baseball statistics is no more difficult then writing about economic statistics.
   The challenge is in the explaining, and that's no harder than explaining why the home team lost the Big Game.