Ask the Experts

There's a symbiotic relationship between journalists and experts: in order to survive, they need each other.

What good is a news story if it doesn't provide expert analysis of an issue from multiple sides? And what makes an expert more credible than being quoted in major news media outlets?

Although this relationship is mutually beneficial, the roles of both the journalist and the expert must be clear-cut. We should not allow the line between news and opinion to be shamelessly blurred as so often happens on 24-hour "news" channels.

I've worked for the past six months at the intersection these two worlds. As a reporter for a daily newsletter published by one of the top twenty-five most-cited think tanks in US media, I work alongside experts who routinely field questions from the AP, Reuters, BBC and even Al-Jazeera English. One of them even made it into my mom's local paper, The Corning Leader: now that's notoriety.

A journalist's job is to report the facts, but "just the facts" doesn't always suffice. Sometime you want to recount what happened and who said what, but you also want to examine the event's significance or implications for the benefit of your readers. Since journalists are supposed to abstain from voicing their own opinions, that means calling in a third party: the expert. These usually consist of academics, stakeholders, corporate analysts or an eminent scholar with such-and-such think tank. As long as you make sure you're giving equal space to differing points of view, the job of the journalist amounts to something like a referee.

From the perspective of the expert, the relationship is also attractive. He gets his name in print plus validation for his opinion and a boost in credibility. Other reporters start to call and this can create somewhat of a feedback loop. The danger here is that one bad choice of commentator by a journalist can validate someone on the fringes of credibility, and other media outlets could propagate that if they don't double-check their sources.

There are a couple of ways in which the line between journalist and expert can become blurred.

The first happens often enough: a reporter, by virtue of witnessing an event firsthand, takes on the role of "expert" in a conversation with a newscaster who is farther removed from the action. This arrangement is peculiar to radio and television, in which journalists are charged not only with creating prepared reports (the limit of print journalism) but engaging in real-time conversation about the news. Take, for instance, this report from PRI's The World, in which Jeff Barbee, a journalist for the Global Post in South Africa, describes first-hand the situation on the ground in Zimbabwe in the midst of a cholera outbreak last December. Barbee does a good job of fielding the newscaster's questions by citing specific sources, including MSF and members of the Zimbabwean military. His job is to recount events, not to analyze them.

When this can turn ugly is when journalists are brought on camera or radio to speculate instead of report facts. This is what happens 24/7 on cable news, where so-called journalists from reputable media outlets like The New York Times, The Washington Post or Politico, sometimes take on the role of pundit, providing their views and analysis on the day's news without distinguishing between fact, speculation and opinion. The trifecta noted above actually appeared this week on PBS's The News Hour, of all places; reporters from each of these publications shared their thoughts about why TurboTax-challenged Tom Daschle and Nancy Killefer withdrew their nominations for Cabinet posts. The problem with that segment is that each "reporter" gave their own analysis (i.e., opinion) on the situation, which included speculation about whether the Obama team had asked these two nominees to step down--something that had no basis in fact (they did acknowledged that).

If news organizations need someone to provide speculation they should call either upon independent experts or on their own "political analysts," which many of the networks do have these days (CNN Senior Political Analyst, etc.). Obviously PBS has a more limited budget so perhaps that explains why they turned reporters into experts.

Another type of overlap that often occurs is when journalists retire or take leaves of absence to work as "experts" in their specialized field. I've seen this happen in DC when individuals who once served as foreign correspondents for their country's own newspapers then flip the coin and emerge as director of a prominent policy center or think tank. One time, while I was attending a a panel discussion, one of these people asked a question and I was stumped as to whether he was asking it as a journalist or a policy wonk.

One sure thing is that for journalists, having a close relationship with some experts in your field is beneficial not only because it can provide you with handy quotes, but because it helps provide the background necessary to fully grasp your subject.

It may seem contradictory, but to be a good journalist is to be an expert in your chosen field. The difference is that, in print or on the air, your efforts should be focused exclusively on telling the story.

And if you don't want to keep your opinions to yourself, go work at a think tank.