“Expert analysts” often labeled as nothing more, get a lot of TV play time these days. They spend hours every day shaping public opinion and — as a recent 7,000-plus-word New York Times investigation (April 20, 2008) showed — in a coherent, deliberate effort to deliver a White House-version of the Iraq War.
The regular viewer might not recognize this though, because underneath the mainstream-media broadcasts of glistening, respectable faces are simply the men’s titles and the words “military analysts.” Internal Pentagon documents repeatedly referred to these analysts as “message force multipliers” or “surrogates.”
|
Advertisement |
Media are responsible for disclosing potential conflicts of interest, particularly when the same talking heads repeatedly appear on the same shows. In what responses they provided, networks contend they disclosed these interests to the extent of what they perceived was their responsibility.
A more important issue brought to light by the Times is our willingness (yeah, we’re guilty too) to surrender to expert opinion, to instantly judge the competency and character of people by the abbreviated titles that follow their names.
Honestly, are we really surprised by the military’s masked campaign? The Times reported that Torie Clarke, the former public relations executive who oversaw the Pentagon’s dealings with analysts, argued that in a spin-saturated news culture, opinion is swayed most by voices perceived as authoritative and utterly independent. Underscore authoritative.
Mainstream “expertise” doesn’t end with the military. In coverage of what is a pivotal point in American politics major television stations have inundated viewers with roundtable discussions between “political analysts.” Again, same people, same shows, same selective disclosure.
Let’s expect news outlets to disclose the interests of their analysts so that we may form our own opinions and let’s not follow “experts” blindly.
• Be respectful of others, the writer and the subjects in the story.
• Be relevant. Keep your comments on point.
• See the guidelines for TalkAbout. Perhaps your comment is best for that community forum, available from the home page, instead of commenting on a particular story.
Comment posters are responsible for the opinions they express and the accuracy of the information they provide. We urge comment writers to treat this as a public forum where manners matter. We encourage a collegial, non-insulting tone. All readers comments must be approved by our staff before posting to the Web site. Be aware, in accordance with the Communications Decency Act and provisions upheld in judicial appeal, that you are responsible for comments posted on this Web site. Montrose Press is not liable for messages from third parties.
DO NOT POST:
* Potentially libelous statements or damaging innuendo.
* Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
* Personal attacks, insults or threats.
* The use of another person's real name to disguise your identity.
* Comments unrelated to the story.
Opinions, advice and all other information expressed in montrosepress.com's reader comments represent the individual's own views and not necessarily those of the Montrose Press. Montrose Press does not endorse and is not responsible for statements, advice or opinions offered by anyone other than authorized Montrose Press spokespersons.
Thank you for your comments!