3 ms·

I've been wondering about the "experts say" part of a headline like this. Qualified people lending their opinion is an important piece of information to the con

by loufe 4y ago

I've been wondering about the "experts say" part of a headline like this. Qualified people lending their opinion is an important piece of information to the context of the article, absolutely, but it also seems exclusive. It's not the opinion of the editorial board of The Guardian, however I also know for a fact that other "experts" would vehemently disagree. Would qualifying this as "some experts say" erode the confidence of the title and thus how sensational it is? Is it maybe implied in the framework of news titles that this is not a universally held opinion by "experts" so much as at least that of several?

ravi_m 4y ago
Most likely the real reason is that articles with "experts say" in the headline performs much better than "some experts say" or "some experts wonder if". The underlying reason for the higher CTR is that most readers want to engage with articles that are more certain than less and their inability to fill in the unstated uncertainty gets exploited.
ofrzeta 4y ago
I've come to the conclusion that "experts" is just a wildcard for journalists to quote random people. Of course every "expert" has to have some track record of the subject in question but there's no measure in qualification. For instance having a track record of wrong predictions in specific economic questions doesn't seem to invalidate your status as an "expert". So what does? And what could an "expert" possible be if there are no usable criteria.
- remarkEon 4y ago
  It’s part of the sea change that happened starting with social media but significantly accelerated in the 2010s. It hit foreign policy first, I think, but by now it’s a feature of reporting for basically everything. > Rhodes singled out a key example to me one day, laced with the brutal contempt that is a hallmark of his private utterances. “All these newspapers used to have foreign bureaus,” he said. “Now they don’t. They call us to explain to them what’s happening in Moscow and Cairo. Most of the outlets are reporting on world events from Washington. The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing.”[1] Rhodes here is talking about geopolitics, but it extends to everything. So many news outlets don’t actually have many people with practical experience anymore, and so they call random people for quotes. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/magazine/the-aspiring-novelist-who-became-obamas-foreign-policy-guru.amp.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/magazine/the-aspiring-nov...
  - Workaccount2 4y ago
    > The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. And on twitter. It's pure cancer to journalism and "journalists" can't seem to help but do all their reporting from the comfort of their home browsing twitter for the "news" and takes all day. Honestly I think honest journalists should take an "Oath of No Twitter" to keep their jobs.
    - marmadukester39 4y ago
      The jobs pay virtually nothing. This is the natural result of sucking all the revenue out of the fourth estate.

by loufe 4y ago

ravi_m 4y ago

Most likely the real reason is that articles with "experts say" in the headline performs much better than "some experts say" or "some experts wonder if". The underlying reason for the higher CTR is that most readers want to engage with articles that are more certain than less and their inability to fill in the unstated uncertainty gets exploited.

ofrzeta 4y ago

I've come to the conclusion that "experts" is just a wildcard for journalists to quote random people. Of course every "expert" has to have some track record of the subject in question but there's no measure in qualification. For instance having a track record of wrong predictions in specific economic questions doesn't seem to invalidate your status as an "expert". So what does? And what could an "expert" possible be if there are no usable criteria.

remarkEon 4y ago
It’s part of the sea change that happened starting with social media but significantly accelerated in the 2010s. It hit foreign policy first, I think, but by now it’s a feature of reporting for basically everything. > Rhodes singled out a key example to me one day, laced with the brutal contempt that is a hallmark of his private utterances. “All these newspapers used to have foreign bureaus,” he said. “Now they don’t. They call us to explain to them what’s happening in Moscow and Cairo. Most of the outlets are reporting on world events from Washington. The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing.”[1] Rhodes here is talking about geopolitics, but it extends to everything. So many news outlets don’t actually have many people with practical experience anymore, and so they call random people for quotes. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/magazine/the-aspiring-novelist-who-became-obamas-foreign-policy-guru.amp.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/magazine/the-aspiring-nov...
- Workaccount2 4y ago
  > The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. And on twitter. It's pure cancer to journalism and "journalists" can't seem to help but do all their reporting from the comfort of their home browsing twitter for the "news" and takes all day. Honestly I think honest journalists should take an "Oath of No Twitter" to keep their jobs.
  - marmadukester39 4y ago
    The jobs pay virtually nothing. This is the natural result of sucking all the revenue out of the fourth estate.