Frendo :: Responding to Delong on Journalism

Frendo :: Responding to Delong on Journalism: Responding to Delong on Journalism

            Brad Delong responds to my post on the state of journalism here:

I find this inadequate. The Financial Times has no problem finding very good reporters to cover economics, finance, law, science, medicine, or politics. Something else is going on here. I am not satisfied with this explanation. Both Brad Delong and I have a comparative advantage in economic analysis (although he obviously has a comparative advantage over me). We both have specialized information about economics that the broader public does not. Thus, when we read stories about economics (and more broadly business, finance, and politics) in the mainstream media, we understand that the level of accuracy is low. From that, I extrapolate that other areas (science, health, the arts) where I do not have specialized knowledge must be treated as poorly. I have no reason to believe otherwise. I fear that this is what Professor Delong is doing when he references the journalism of the Financial Times (and I would add, as he has in other posts, the Wall Street Journal and the Economist). Certainly the economic reporting of these three publications is very good, far better than the average paper. However, we should be careful not to read more into this than we should. It is clear that Professor Delong is more knowledgeable than I am about science, the arts, and other non-economic areas, but his is still a layman%u2019s knowledge. It is not his area of expertise. I find it implausible to believe that the publications Professor Delong and I go to for good quality economic/financial journalism (since they do specialize in these areas) just happen to be the same publications that do a good job with all other subject matter. I have no certainty because I really have no idea how well the non-economic columns in these publications are written, but I have reason to be suspicious with Delong%u2019s glowing endorsement.