If economic forecasting is more akin to weather forecasting, (in accuracy) why wouldn’t economic forecasters practice the same presentation styles as weather forecasters? That is, given any usual business news (or even national and local news), economic forecasters present economic forecasts that resemble the presentation styles of weather forecasters. It would include clear and concise explanations from a relatively attractive, well-spoken person (don’t think actual economists like that exist) who can dictate changes in forecast trends for the economy who is aided by a green screen, supplying graphical information to aide in making their point. I could see this being viable on a business news network, where viewers are more economically literate.
How much credence would viewers give towards economic forecasters than weather forecasters? Much like climatologists who are a huge step away from meteorologists, are traditional economists a huge step away from forecasting economists? Both disciplines may be a few and far between in practice, but actual consumers of forecasts don’t let the difference phase them. As much as most still watch the weather, many still pay attention to economic forecasts. (For one, clients pay attention to mine.)
Would this ruin the perceived legitimacy of economic forecasting? In other words, is the ramification of being wrong more costly? Betting on good weather may result in the unfortunate situation in which one is with wet clothes, but much like the housing crisis, betting on economic forecasts may leave one underwater.
HT: Chartporn (for Picture above)