The Failure of Experts

There are two problems with information today which combine to cause a great deal of confusion.

1. Too much information available on the Internet and other media, including lies, damn lies, fake news and alternative facts. It really is hard to make up your mind on anything.
2. There are always plenty of experts ready and willing to help you out. Everybody’s an expert these days. Just ask them; they’ll tell you. Just at the moment when we need real experts to help us navigate this plethora of information, we are suffering from a surfeit of experts. And because of expert inflation, experts are losing their clout. People who really know are ignored and disbelieved, because nobody knows which is which.

Fake Experts

This proliferation of experts has the inevitable effect of diluting our dependence on them. As well it should. There are so many people claiming expertise and then using that claim to try to influence us to do stupid things and support questionable causes, we need to be very careful.

Real Experts

But the people who really know are partially to blame. If they want credibility as experts, they have to demonstrate a bit of impartiality. If you go all gangbusters like David Suzuki does, you’re going to lose a lot of clout with the general public, because you get labelled an extremist. Not that I disagree with anything Suzuki says, but if you go too far in any direction the mainstream will write you off as unrealistic.

Likewise, any whiff of political bias (especially American politics) is sure death. For example, there was a great outpouring of self-righteousness during the Soviet Hacking scandal, because all 17 (or however many there are) of America’s spy agencies agreed that there was “overwhelming evidence” to support the contention that the Soviets had, truly, attempted to influence the outcome of the American election. A powerful argument.

Then some spoilsport observed that the same incredible number of agencies had been quoted as reporting “overwhelming evidence” of Weapons of Mass Destruction, the main rationalization for George W. invading Iraq. Which turned out to be a complete crock. It seems the American government’s expert spy agencies tell their masters what the masters want to hear.

So it’s up to real experts to maintain their neutrality. A reputation for fairness will go a long way in the media. At least it should.

Who Do We Believe?

It is also up to viewers to do our due diligence before running out and acting on the information we have received. But how can we tell if the source is accurate?

1. Past History and Present Connections

Certain media outlets have traditionally allied themselves with certain political movements. Other outlets are owned by people or organizations with specific political objectives. The first rule of thumb is not to believe much these outlets say, especially about their opposition. This isn’t to say you shouldn’t look at them. Just that, when you place them on the continuum between “true fact” and “biased opinion,” you lean in the appropriate direction.

2. Reputation

I read the Vancouver Sun. I consider it a fairly right-wing newspaper, and I treat its editorials with that in mind. On the other hand, I have a lot of respect for the reporters and commentators at that newspaper. I may not agree with their politics, but I believe that they have done their due diligence to be sure that anything they present as fact is, in fact, fact. If you get what I mean. So for provincial and federal politics, I’m not completely trustful of what they say. On the international scene, I find them much more reliable.

One of the best sources for information is the good old CBC. This organization is owned by the Canadian people, and thus has the same sort of mildly-small-l-liberal slant that Canadians have a reputation for (which means, in American terms, Card-Carrying Commie Pinko). When it comes to Olympic Sports and World Figure Skating commentary, they are second to none. There may be a certain jingoistic slant, but not much. You might say that American media reports American athletes and little else. At least CBC reports the winners from other countries before they go on about our athletes.

And What Do We Not Believe?

1. Spin Doctoring

We have to learn to distinguish “alternative facts” from “alternative interpretation of the facts.” For example, the Insiders on CBC recently reminded us of a politician during a media occasion who was thrown a football, which he caught 9 times and missed once. The media took the miss and splashed it across Canada. The fact? He missed the football. The alternative fact? He caught nine of them.

But the interpretation the media chose to put on the facts was that the man was a bumbler. And he lost the election.

2. The Echo Chamber Effect

People put information up on media, where it is picked up by other people who believe the same way, who toss it back and forth within their group, persuading each other how right their interpretation is. After a while it becomes more and more true. “Everyone says it, so it must be fact.”

Everyone who thinks like you says it, which means nothing to the rest of the world. Which means you might want to look for alternative interpretations before allowing your mind to ossify.

Important Classification: Reporting or Commenting?

And last, make sure you know whether the media person is reporting, which means stating facts, or commenting, which means giving opinions. Don’t mix them up, especially if it looks like someone is reporting opinions as facts.

A Strong Independent Media

We need news reporters who check their facts and stand by them. We need commentators who will give balanced opinions, or at least be honest that they are giving opinions and not facts.

It is up to you as an individual to choose where you get your facts, and to learn how to analyze their veracity. This takes work. Lazy people simply look for information and opinions that support their views.

And Then There’s “Not News at All “

Last, don’t mix real news up with news created for its entertainment value. People are always passing around information they received on the Internet, with no idea whether it is actually true or not. Even photos and video can lie. Especially lies of omission.

Check out this “Dog Saves Other Dog” video. It’s questionable whether the dog was in any danger at all, and whether the saviour had any intention other than stealing his buddy’s stick.

Just another example of “created news.”

And I suppose as a last resort you can simply use your brains. If you keep your eyes open, monitor a selection of media, and keep an open and slightly cynical mind, you can probably get a reasonable idea of what’s going on in the world, and have an idea whether someone who says he’s an expert really knows what he’s talking about.