I think the problem is more that most economists are innumerate. Economics meets virtually all of the definitions of a pseudo-science. Just because there are differential equations in a paper doesn't mean it's real science with proven predictive power.
(Anecdata, but why not?) In the run-up to 2008 I was having regular random conversations with non-technical people about the fact that the bubble was about to pop. It was obvious to them that valuations were divorced from all common sense.
But most expert economists and/or bankers were insisting the valuations were correct, and there was no cause for concern.
In this kind of context - and there's a very long history of it in finance and banking, so it's hardly a one-off - it seems a little strange to be picking on journalists for alleged innumeracy.
Put crudely, it isn't journalists who do the damage.
(Anecdata, but why not?) In the run-up to 2008 I was having regular random conversations with non-technical people about the fact that the bubble was about to pop. It was obvious to them that valuations were divorced from all common sense.
But most expert economists and/or bankers were insisting the valuations were correct, and there was no cause for concern.
In this kind of context - and there's a very long history of it in finance and banking, so it's hardly a one-off - it seems a little strange to be picking on journalists for alleged innumeracy.
Put crudely, it isn't journalists who do the damage.