Seth writes,
If I [Seth] taught journalism . . . I would tell my students the best thing is a story of success . . . because we can always learn from it. Next best is a story of failure because we can always learn from that, too. Worst is to quote experts (e.g., Pollan quotes Marion Nestle). For two reasons: 1. Experts are often wrong. When they are, it is worse than learning nothing — we are actively misled. 2. Experts — at least in standard journalism — never say the facts on which their claims are based. Even if they are correct, what the reader learns from quoting them is shallow.
I have mixed feelings about this attitude.
1. As an expert who is very occasionally quoted, let me say that I’m always trying to explain the facts and theories on which my claims are based. These things always seem to get cut before making it to the final article.
2. One thing that always bugs me is experts who aren’t really experts. Or, more precisely, experts in subject A who pontificate on subject B. See here for my comments on this issue. So, one angle on Seth’s general comment is that experts aren’t always so expert.
3. But is it really “the best thing” to give a story of success? I see magazine articles like this all the time: something about some educational policy, or some military strategy, or whatever, and the standard journalistic approach seems to be to follow some individual case and then, at the end, have a little punch line about how things worked out so great (or not). Some journalists (for example, Katherine Boo) are pretty good at telling these humanizing stories without trying to turn them into pat stories of success or failure, but I think that’s pretty rare. More common, I think, is the use of anecdote to drive home the point.
As a statistician, though, I’m suspicious of anecdotes. Yes, I know that I rely on them all the time in real life, but I don’t have to feel good about that! Getting back to journalists, it seems to me you can say just about anything using an anecdote. For example, in Seth’s fields of expertise of depression and weight control, I’m sure there are zillions of stories of people who took therapy X or drug Y or diet Z and had success or failure, but what’s that supposed to tell me? I’d much rather hear from an expert, or even better have a more in-depth probing of an expert’s position, perhaps by another expert.
For example, in Seth’s example, Michael Pollan could’ve gotten Marion Nestle and Seth in a room together and moved them toward sharpening their points of disagreement. This would be a big advance from the “He said, she said” school of journalism.
That said, I can see why it would be difficult to do. As a journal editor, I often find it difficult to get people to write published discussions of research articles. It’s probably also not so easy for a journalist to get two disagreeing experts in a room together.
I'm less conflicted about my response to Seths' remarks; I think they're asinine. Yes, it doesn't do much good to present information that isn't clear and compelling. But let's first make sure we have critical thinking and valid knowledge before going to the secondary (but also vital) step of providing it in a narrative that others will find accessible and compelling.
Also, why be so defeatist about the clarity and usability of expert-provided information? Many of us doing research these days (at least in the social sciences) are "pracademics" — regularly doing consulting for those without a research background — and knowing how to present our findings in useful and influential ways goes with the territory.
I also think it's a bad sign that when I visited his blog and read about his current "experiment," I walked away with the next case study for my graduate research methods students, and it's a case of spot the (many) challenges to validity in this flawed experimental design.
John,
I was mixed rather than negative because I recognize the problems of the "he said, she said" style of journalism, where experts are quoted rather than interrogated, and where opposing experts speak in parallel without their disagreeing statements being confronted. Also, I am bothered by the topic A experts who mouth off about topic B.
What compounds the problem of expert opinion is our journalism's insistence on "objective" (or "equal time") reporting. So after citing (and abridging) what Andrew has to say about something, the reporter will likely present another expert who gives an opposing view. But the reader is not told that Andrew represents the majority view; and the reader if she is not an expert herself really has no way to know who to believe. This is happening with evolution, climate change, etc. etc.
Andrew, those are excellent points, and I agree with you. I suppose I just don't see that warranting the conclusion of jettisoning the use of experts, as that certainly doesn't make the situation better. To my mind, it simply warrants better trained journalists.
Kaiser, I think perhaps the problem is journalists wrongly conflating "objective" with "equal time."
And then there's the truly odd alternative to tapping experts: the increasingly common habit of journalists turning to each other as subjects, creating a pundit-happy echo-chamber that's anything but informative or sensibly critical.