No man will say, "Sorry can't do your show tonight, I'm not an expert in that particular aspect of the story." They'll get up to speed on the issue and come on.In the graphic at the bottom of the page, they describe it as follows:
The female character in the cartoon is saying "I'm not sure I'm the right person for this", and the male character is saying "I can read up on this. I'd be happy to join you."
This is a problem.
The problem is not, as Steve Paikin suggests, that the female character declines to go on TV because she doesn't feel she's an expert. The problem is that the male character isn't an expert and is just cramming for the interview, but they let him go on TV anyway!
I was shocked to see such a widely-respected journalist as Steve Paikin suggest that agreeing to go on TV and be interviewed as an expert when you aren't actually an expert and are just going to read up on the subject in the short time before the interview is laudable. Because it is not laudable. Rather, it does a huge disservice to viewers and society as a whole.
If I'm taking the time to watch a TV interview about a subject, I've already read up on it. That's how I know I'm interested enough in it to involve myself in the more time-consuming process of watching a video.
If the person being interviewed is just reading up on it too, as opposed to having long-standing independent and practical expertise, it's quite likely that they're reading a lot of the same stuff I am. So not only do they have a far more limited pool of knowledge than an actual expert, their knowledge is closer to mine than an actual expert's. And, of course, when they're interviewed, we only see a fraction of their knowledge. So I'm tuning into hear what the experts say, and I'm hearing someone parroting a small fraction of my own knowledge. So not only am I not learning, I'm getting an over-inflated sense of my own expertise (I already knew everything that expert on TV said!)
Giving people an over-inflated sense of their own expertise is detrimental to society as a whole. I'm probably not the only one watching TV who is not an expert but has read up on the subject. If everyone who is doing the same thing comes away feeling like we already know enough about the subject, we'll probably stop reading up on it. And then we'll end up in a situation where we're all taking action and making decisions while underinformed, without even knowing that we're underinformed.
We've all seen what harm voting while underinformed can do. The situation will become even worse if more engaged and activist people who make a concerted effort to be informed - by watching The Agenda, for example - come away underinformed unbeknownst to themselves.
As for the original problem of prospective female guests accepting far less frequently than prospective male guests, the solution becomes quite clear if we look at the situation in broader terms, without any explicit or tacit gender markers:
The Agenda is a TV show. They've noticed a recurring pattern where people they want to interview are unable to appear on the TV show, either because they do not have an opening in their schedule for the time of the interview or because they're unable to be prepared for the interview by the time of the interview.
Therefore, the solution is longer lead times.
If The Agenda gives the people they wish to interview more time and more warning, they can clear their schedule (including things like finding childcare, if applicable) and get themselves properly prepared (including things like getting their hair done, if applicable).
The Agenda is not a breaking news report, it's an in-depth interview and analysis program. I'd rather see The Agenda interview the best expert weeks after the story broke than interview someone who wasn't up on the issue but crammed so they could be on TV the same day the story broke.
On top of that, I find myself wondering how I, as a viewer, can trust The Agenda knowing that they accept interviewees who aren't true experts but rather simply cram on the topic before the interview? How do I know whether the person being interviewed actually has true in-depth knowledge, as opposed to having just read some stuff about the topic just like I have? If everything they mention is something I already know, does that mean I know everything I need to? Or does it just mean that the alleged "expert" doesn't know enough? If what they're saying sounds completely bizarre and ridiculous and incompatible with the world as I understand it, does that mean I need to question my whole understanding of the world? Or does that just mean that they're ignorant but willing to appear on TV?
This is compounded by the blog post's invalidating dismissiveness of prospective guests' not wanting to appear on TV as experts because they don't feel they're actually experts. Why would The Agenda trust someone to appear on TV as an expert informing the public about a complex subject, but not trust that same person to say "I'm not a good enough expert to do this job. You need someone who is more of an expert than I am"? It's quite likely the subject is far more complex than a TV producer perceives and there are layers of expertise that the producer can't even begin to fathom - which is fine, the TV producer has their own job to do. But if you don't trust your would-be expert's expertise, why are you inviting them to appear on TV and educate the rest of us? If you trust them that much, you should be taking them at their word and finding someone better.
If The Agenda can't get the guests they want because of scheduling-related issues, they should produce their shows with longer lead times. If the experts they originally seek out tell them they need better experts and they can't get enough better experts to do the shows they want to do, they should do fewer shows - maybe one or twice a week rather than every day. But they're doing their audience - and the public as a whole - a huge disservice by airing shows with people whose best qualification is that they're willing to be on TV.
1 comment:
They do generally schedule in advance and produce a show that, though possibly male biased, is certainly more in-depth than the pablub that passes for TV news. Perhaps late-breaking headlines are where things go off the rails. In theory, this is supposed to be "water week", but of course they just had to deal with Crimea for Monday's show, so when shit gets real somewhere they assemble something on the fly. Of course, The Agenda was better back when it was Studio 2...
Post a Comment