A Statute of Limitations on Political Experts

I have plainly been watching too much television.  The tube, as has become the norm, is dominated by vacuity. Not just the sitcoms, but the news feels like a wilderness of reruns.  I keep hearing identically stale arguments from hordes of indistinguishable “political experts.”

My problem is that these erstwhile authorities keep spouting confident analyses irrespective of whether their judgments fit the realities.  Did you know, for instance, that the Trump tax cuts have not worked?  Or that the border wall cannot keep illegal immigrants out?  Or that the Trump presidency is about to implode?

No, wait!  Trump is still with us.  But that doesn’t matter.  This is only a fact and facts are extraneous.  Viewers aren’t paying attention so the experts can repeat their disconfirmed predictions or say nothing.  No one will notice and hence no one will realize they were mistaken.

Okay.  Let me ask a different question.  Why do particular talking heads get on television?  I once assumed it was because they were well versed in the subjects they discuss.  Their role was to enlighten us about important issues.  This turns out to be false.  Their actual function is to gin up controversy or promote partisan views.

Having once worked as a newspaper reporter, I should have understood this.  Back then, if I wanted to highlight a particular opinion, I could always find someone to supply the appropriate quote.  This provided weight to whatever cockamamie notion I hoped to feature.

Given our current twenty-four hour news cycle, it is more difficult to keep finding fresh voices.  As a result, interchangeable folks need to be recycled.  Worse yet, their alleged expertise has fallen to a new low. Frequently their only qualification for airtime is an ability to articulate the party line.

No wonder these phonies make so many mistakes.  No wonder their predictions are repeatedly wrong.  Even so, this is embarrassing.  Perhaps the operative attitude among these talking heads is that any publicity is good publicity.  They must believe that as long as they can get on television, this will pump them up in someone’s eyes.

Nevertheless, I propose that we enforce a statute of limitations on political experts.  After a specified period, if their commentary proves to be off base, they should be banned from further appearances.  In other words, there should be some acknowledgement that they were never really expert.

When it comes to the law, many crimes are not prosecuted after too much time has elapsed.  People are allowed to get away with misdeeds because they occurred long ago.  I am suggesting the reverse.  I am arguing for a media “death sentence” to be imposed for constant foolishness.

I realize that for many networks this would create a hardship. They are staffed by bloviating jesters whose only skill is an ability to frame absurdities in a provocative manner. Their mandate is obviously to placate their viewers craving for political red meat.

Still, how many errors are too many?  Once upon a time journalists were expected to issue retractions for erroneous stories.  Nowadays, however, a respect for honesty has gone by the boards.  Lies and truths have become so indistinguishable that media types cannot tell the difference.

Many years ago, Newton Minnow, then head of the FCC, described television as a vast wasteland.  He assumed that this powerful medium should be dedicated to educating the public. Does anyone believe TV news is currently even attempting this?

We all know the chief culprit.  Partisanship has replaced objectivity as the criterion for what was formerly journalism.  Putative experts are no longer expert because they know things.  Rather, they are portrayed as experts because they have the brass to pretend they are.

For my own part, I cannot imagine caring so little for the worth of my reputation.  As an academic, my goal is to get things right.  When I make mistakes—as we all do—I seek to correct them.  While I may not succeed, I would be mortified if I did not try.

So I ask, what kinds of people don’t try?  What sorts of humans depict themselves as experts when events demonstrate they are not?  How can they look at themselves in the mirror?  Do they like what they see?

Then again: what about us?  Why are we, the American public, paying attention to these frauds?  Don’t we care about our commitments to the truth?  Why didn’t our heads explode when NBC gloated that Trump has not visited the troops in Iraq—when he had?

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus

Kennesaw State University