For any specialized field, doing this would require something more than the kinds of schooling journalists get. It would also step on a lot of political toes: For example, the current national debt is $X. Why is it that big? Is that number a problem? Say anything concrete regarding either of those questions and you get screeching. Just endless, wordless screeching, like the Pod People in Invasion of the Body Snatchers, only directed into your Letters to the Editor column.
There are strong consensuses about some aspects of those problems, however, especially regarding the benefits of using government debt to finance stimulus programs as part of a counter-cyclical action against a recession. Saying it's all unknown is about as intellectually honest as saying that we don't know whether the world is flat or round because we're unsure of its topology at the millimeter scale.
There is no consensus that counter-cyclical stimulus is beneficial, outside of those economists already committed to central economic planning of the money supply. Basic economic theory tells us that spending directed by political forces is likely to be less efficient than spending directed by market forces. Counter-cyclical stimulus uses future earnings of the private sector to pay for current government spending, so assuming all other factors remain equal, the price is less market-directed spending.
Moreover, counter-cyclical stimulus interferes with the development of the natural corrective processes of a free market, because it means those who saved cash during the credit bubble have less opportunity to buy up assets when the bubble pops. By reducing the capital allocated to this group, you reduce their future influence on the economy, which would have the effect of reducing the magnitude of bubbles, and with it, economic volatility.
You can say the same thing about paleontology, but do you seriously doubt the past existence of non-avian dinosaurs?
> For example, does a true free market really exist anywhere in the world? How about a 100% command economy?
You don't need perfect examples of things to observe what happens when economies closely approach those extremes.
> How can you honesty determine if the federal reserve helps or hurts the economy?
By observing how horrible the business cycle was prior to its existence.
About eight years ago, I landed my first full-time software development job in part because of a walkthrough I gave during my in-person interview process of a tool I'd developed while working for a metro daily newspaper. It wrote lottery results stories with the click of a button.
Writing those results stories was a daily chore. We would look up the state's daily lottery results and also report Powerball and Mega Millions results. For those larger lotteries, we'd also adjust our headlines depending on whether there was a big winner in our state. But aside from that, it was just tedious and formulaic, so I wrote a script that would hit the various lottery sites, scrape the data, and generate a two- or three-paragraph story that was ready to post. It took the task down from five minutes to five seconds. (I later worked on a similar tool for generating short weather reports and alerts.)
Since then, I've worked on other NLG stuff, and honestly, it's pretty hard, and the topic really has to be data-driven to begin with; we're probably decades away from really insightful NLG that offers "why" explanations, as opposed to "what" or "how" descriptions.
The other tough challenge about computer-generated journalism is that getting the data is often the hardest part of the process. Oh, sure, businesses are going to release their quarterly earnings reports, and sports teams are going to release their game data. You might even use computer-assisted reporting to generate FOIA requests for data that governments are required by law to release upon request. But you're not going to write a story that leads to Nixon's resignation or Enron's collapse simply by asking for the data.