News outlets have increasingly turned to “experts” and pundits to analyze and explain current events. While expertise certainly has its place, all too often these experts are using media exposure to promote their own brands and books rather than provide unbiased analysis. This trend of news outlets essentially functioning as marketing arms for certain experts has serious downsides that undermine journalistic integrity and public discourse.
One of the main issues is that experts who know their appearances and quotes will be used to promote their upcoming books have an incentive to take more extreme or attention-grabbing positions in order to drive sales. Subtlety and nuance tend not to generate headlines or go viral on social media. As a result, we see experts stake out more polarized stances and make bold predictions they cannot truly back up in order to get their name and book in front of more potential buyers.
This dynamic has real-world consequences. Experts pushing extreme views or unfounded predictions can mislead the public and even influence policymaking. It also skews the overall discourse in a more polarized direction. When being a provocateur or doomsayer becomes a more effective marketing strategy than responsible analysis, it moves discussion further from the truth and reality.
The problem is exacerbated by the fact that news outlets often do little vetting of these so-called experts beyond checking their credentials and prior media appearances. As long as someone has written a book and can make a compelling soundbite, they are given a platform, even if their particular views or area of focus is outside their true expertise. This allows pseudo-experts and ideologues to pose as authorities and mislead the public. It also crowds out experts who may have more nuanced or dissenting views but cannot self-promote as effectively.
Even for legitimate experts, the need to constantly promote their brand and next projects through media appearances risks mission creep. Instead of focusing on providing the best analysis, too much attention is spent on crafting attention-grabbing soundbites and hustling for more appearances. The work becomes less about expanding understanding and more about expanding one’s own public profile. Like any entertainer or influencer, experts have an incentive to say what gets attention rather than what fully represents reality.
This issue is particularly problematic when it comes to analyzing fast-moving world events in real-time. Experts may feel pressure to stake out a position very early for publicity reasons before all the facts are known. Their analysis could then be proven wrong but the initial headlines and social media buzz around their predictions are what live on. The public is left with a distorted understanding based on premature or inaccurate claims from “experts” that news outlets helped amplify for marketing purposes.
The cozy relationship between many prominent experts and news outlets also risks creating an echo chamber effect. Outlets tend to feature the same rotating experts who all share generally similar ideological perspectives. Dissenting views are less likely to break through. This dynamic was put on stark display during the early months of the Covid pandemic when only a narrow range of “approved” experts were given a platform, allowing misguided policies to persist for longer than needed due to lack of open debate.
There are no easy fixes to these issues, but greater self-awareness from all parties would help. News outlets should establish clearer guidelines around disclosing conflicts of interest when experts are actively promoting their work. Experts also need to be more transparent about their motivations and remember their duty is to inform the public, not just expand their own brands.
More effort should also go into featuring a broader range of experts beyond the usual suspects. Dissenting views that challenge the status quo should not be excluded simply because those experts lack marketing skills. A diversity of perspectives, even if impolitic, allows for a more robust public debate.
The trend of news becoming inextricably intertwined with book promotion risks undermining the credibility of expertise and the integrity of the journalistic process. While self-promotion is a reality of the current media environment, prioritizing marketing over responsible analysis moves us further from the truth. Both experts and news outlets would do well to reconsider how their relationship could be reformed to better serve the public interest.
