James Poulos · Jun 12, 2010 at 10:22am

Via Andrew, Al Giordano warns we had better consider what media crisis-mongering

does to the media worker – not just journalists, per se, but communicators and artists of all kinds – who are now reduced to typing monkeys that have to go out and find those “instant experts” or cram to be able to at least play them on TV, or on a blog, or any other media. You’re expected to write or talk or shout about every crisis of the week, so you - I'm talking to you, fellow and sister media workers! - run to Wikipedia and the rest of the online library to pull up some factoids and buzzwords that fool the crowd into thinking the reporter or communicator really knows what he and she are writing or talking about. The formulaic nature of this kind of frenetic activity at work stations is killing so much of the creativity of the formerly “creative class”!

Just the other day, I was drinking a mint julep and listening to a friend often on my teevee ruefully acknowledge this. You pick three talking points. You adopt a confident grimace. You erect a defensive wall of snark, and you hammer home your catchphrases, peppered with enough stats to make them sound like informed conclusions. And then you let the sense of crisis do the work. When every issue hinges on a disaster in the making, the besieged viewer has just enough time to declare his allegiance. And in a world where only experts can have answers, anyone can become an instant expert.

  • Comment Filters
Contributor Comments
Member Comments
Comment Popularity

Comments :

John Boyer
Joined
May '10
John Boyer

I couldn't agree more. As a fairly new grad student, the issue of specialization has been impressed on me. Looking into ethics? I turn to the ethics specialist in my department Dr. Jensen. Need to in depth answers about metaphysics? Don't ask Dr. Jensen, who doesn't pretend to be an expert or even pretend to have any deep interest in metaphysics.

The experts on one subject are completely different from the experts on another subject. And in the public forum, it seems we pick our favorite pundits and treat them as experts with in depth knowledge in everything. The blogosphere does allow for some specialization. Need analysis of a law issue? Check out Volokh. But I don't turn to him for in depth analysis of oil containment procedures.

The crisis mentality, which goes hand in hand with the politicization of crises, means one comes to expect your political pundit to be able to analyze every issue in depth. And we are poorer for it.

Aaron Miller
Joined
May '10
Aaron Miller

Knowledge and experience make one neither wise nor honest. I tend to ignore titles and doctorates, more so since going through college.

Awards are even worse. Nobel should have stuck to dynamite.

John Boyer: And in the public forum, it seems we pick our favorite pundits and treat them as experts with in depth knowledge in everything. · Jun 12 at 10:35am

Definitely an easy habit to fall into. I favor different analysts for different subjects, but I would never depend on specialists entirely or discourage them from commenting on subjects outside their fields of expertise. The most informed perspective is not always the most insightful; certainly never the only relevant perspective. Some people have all the answers but ask such myopic questions. And even the wisest person has fits of idiocy.

Also, appeals to authority are rarely effective in genuine debates. The more strongly a person disagrees with you, the more likely that person distrusts your sources.

John Boyer
Joined
May '10
John Boyer
Aaron Miller: Also, appeals to authority are rarely effective in genuine debates. The more strongly a person disagrees with you, the more likely that person distrusts your sources. · Jun 12 at 11:15am

Exactly. I remember arguing with an lefty friend of mine who was stridently anti-nuke, environmentalist. Since we didn't have the internet at our fingertips, we were both suspicious of each other's sources.

Cas Balicki
Joined
Jun '10
Cas Balicki

The problem with expertise is not that people don’t know their subject, experts do know their subject or by definition they would not be experts. The problem is the deference we pay to the expert. Albert Einstein knew physics, and because of it someone wanted to make him president of Israel. Does that make any sense? Fortunately for Israel, Einstein was smart enough to turn down the gig. More interesting is that on this very site there is another debate going that has a sub-theme of is Sarah Palin smart enough? It turns out that debaters are of varying opinion on her expertise. The cabbie driving you to the airport may not know astrophysics as well as Brian May, the lead guitarist of Queen, but chances are he knows both the shortest and the longest route to the airport. Still, what’s Astrophysics got to do with playing Bohemian Rhapsody? Well, nothing, except maybe as an example of situational expertise, which tangentially may be the best description of leadership extant.


Would you like to comment on this Conversation?

Become a Member for $3.67 a month.

Join the Conversation
Already a member? Sign In
Loading
Welcome Visitor

Already a Member?
Please Sign In

Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:

Join Ricochet today!

Already a Member? Sign In