Brilliant and succinct analysis of the erosion of expertise in the media from Todd Gitlin, in an article he wrote for the Chronicle of Higher Education. Check it out:
But when news media go looking for experts, they don’t examine their records. Baseball announcers would be fired for not knowing the RBI records of designated hitters. But editors don’t think it’s their business to vet their experts. They’re not enamored of expertise, they’re enamored of the aura of expertise. They embrace their experts all the way over the cliff.
With a news cycle running at full steam 24 hours a day and a push on the web to create and distribute content rather than substance, the walls come down. Or rather, the foundations crumble. We need viewers, we need visitors, we need clicks and likes have replaced we need to be the best in the business, the most knowledgeable, the most trustworthy. That’s what content and content farms are there to do: The objective isn’t to answer questions, educate or even drive purchasing behaviors. It is simply to attract eyeballs. As many as possible, as often as possible. More eyeballs = more advertising revenue, and more advertising revenue is the end-game. If one channel isn’t enough, create a new one. Each new channel is like an empty bucket that needs to filled with… content. When SEO-friendly filler won’t do, sensational headlines and constant “news alerts” will pull eyeballs.
Opinions are now simply a product, which means that opinions have become mere content: Here is opinion A. Here is opinion B. Let’s throw a few soundbites back and forth at each other and move on to the next thing. Sell someone as an expert (or accept their claim regardless of whether or not they actually are) in order to fill a segment, and you have instant expert content. Now you have your 3 minute interview, your 3-paragraph blog post, your bite-sized YouTube video. More content means more views. More views means more advertising revenue, more chances to push more content and thus yet more advertising, more opportunities to sell webinars and white papers and $250 monthly subscriptions to the newsletter. Not enough experts to fill up 24/7/365 worth of news and content across 300+ channels? No worries: Just make some up. Anyone with an opinion that can be conveniently packaged as option A or option B will qualify as an expert for the purposes of a segment, of a presentation, of a consulting gig. And it isn’t like you will run out of people begging for their 15 minutes of fame anytime soon. The “personal brands.” The gurus. The overnight experts. They’re lining up around the block. You know why? Because they’re in demand and they know it.
Here is Mr. Gitlin again:
Some years ago, I wrote about the example of Edward Yardeni, formerly the chief economist of Deutsche Bank, who anticipated a world depression as the likely outcome of Y2K, yet remains on many a go-to list for economic commentary. That he was badly mistaken did not impair his place on the media quotemeister list. Just this month, for example, he shows up not only in the FT but also Bloomberg, USA Today, and a San Francisco Chronicle blog—though one is thankful that he appears mainly to state the obvious.
Any of the following statements sound familiar?
Quora is going to redefine the social web.
Google Buzz is a game-changer.
Google Wave is here to stay.
Google+ will kill Facebook.
We’re one of the world’s first full service social media agency.
We’ll handle all of your social media feeds.
The value of a Facebook fan is $1.93
Social Media ROI = (brand equity x engagement) ÷ online mentions.
Content is king.
Blog post after blog post, presentation after presentation, prediction after prediction, are you really seeing valid expertise and insight, or simply an endless stream of content?
If you think that make-believe “experts” will eventually go away all on their own, keep dreaming. Why would they? We have created a market for them, built demand for their BS, given them an ever-growing platform, and held them accountable for absolutely nothing. How many social media-themed conferences are there now, each with dozens of tracks and breakout sessions? Among them, how many have really turned out to be either thinly disguised sales pitches or vague rehashes of basic concepts you already knew 3 years ago?
How many “experts” are still publishing books, selling bogus ROI calculators and make-believe “case studies,” how many are being increasingly quoted by self-professed “news” sites – where they guest-blog for free without much of an editorial review process? Is that really the business ecosystem you want to be building and supporting? Smoke and mirrors and BS by the pound, when real ideas and legitimate expertise are so sorely needed all around us? Really? In the crux of a recession, when companies need real help, when people need real solutions, when entire economies are in serious need of real direction, we want to gravitate towards the lowest common denominator? This is what we want to reward?
The dog that gets the strongest is the one you feed. One will protect and strengthen you. The other one will lead you astray and eat you in your sleep. Make sure you’re feeding the right one.
* * *
Sources
Image: The Emperor’s New Sales ©2011 Olivier Blanchard
Quoted: Expertise, Dogma and the Journalism of Crackpot Ideas, by Todd Gitlin [published by The Chronicle of Higher Education, July 31, 2011]
Image:


















[...] New media and the erosion of expertise, in a nutshell. Published: August 8, 2011 Source: The BrandBuilder Blog Brilliant and succinct analysis of the erosion of expertise in the media from Todd Gitlin, in an article he wrote for the Chronicle of Higher Education. Check it out: [...]
[...] De aici Voi ce credeţi despre avalanşa de experţi pe care îi întâlnim peste tot? Pe aceeaşi temă:LinkuriTotul la jumătate de prețSocial media explicată [...]
Right on, Olivier. The erosion of journalistic talent and integrity is following a similar path.
Waiting for the pendulum to swing back. It has to at some point.
Olivier, I have done a word/concept/impact value calculation on this blog post, bearing in mind your Klout score and your RT history during peak viewer-impression times, and calculated that this blog post is worth approximately $9.23 in today’s inflation-adjusted dollars. This ranks you at 4,598 in today’s blog post value lottery…
My calculator says I’m in the pineapple lavender quadrant today, with 98% Kraut.
Wow. I think I heard a pin drop. = )
Great post Olivier and as always, spot on!
Don’t you love that sound?
Dude. Sweet.
Right there with you. The endless deluge of “new media” type hyping the shit out of content as a means to enormous audiences just aching for more advertising and interruption marketing as if it’s somehow different from the unsustainable business models of the legacy media will be first against the wall when the Value Revolution comes.
Part of the solution, part of the problem, or part of the landscape.
Well said.
[...] the original: New media and the erosion of expertise, in a nutshell. « The … 08/08/2011 – 19:37 | By mikeandshelly777 | Posted in Commentary, Media, Publishing | Tagged [...]
[...] the rest here: New media and the erosion of expertise, in a nutshell. « The … Tagged with: check-it-out • chronicle • education • erosion • gitlin • [...]
[...] the rest here: New media and the erosion of expertise, in a nutshell. « The … Posted in Media, TV | Tagged check-it-out, chronicle, erosion, gitlin, Media, the-erosion, TV [...]
[...] reading here: New media and the erosion of expertise, in a nutshell. « The … Posted in Blogs, Media, TV | Tagged check-it-out, chronicle, Comentário, education, erosion, [...]
[...] Read this article: New media and the erosion of expertise, in a nutshell. « The … [...]
Spot on Olivier. My only hope is that when us consumers have to pay for content that we will demand robust, solidly researched articles not whipped up frenzy. Here is a statement from the good old BBC after the riots in London this week to add to your list:
“Is technology to blame for riots?”
What a load of claptrap. Iain Mackenzie, the journalist needs sending straight back to journalism school! But then perhaps the quality, integrity and capability starts there!
100% with you on that. Great example too.
We’re totally on the same page right now with everything you’ve posted. I’ve been lamenting the lack of solid information on the web. I love your content vs. substance comparison as it fits the bill perfectly. It’s painfully obvious how some blogs and media outlets post “articles” for the sake of page views, or how brands will post on Facebook and Twitter for the like and retweet, respectively. But I always come back to “but for what end?” Why waste my time, and everyone else’s for that matter, to post a blog entry that has a 50 word summary of someone else’s blog post and not add anything to the conversation?
I think there’s a growing demographic of people frustrated with all the content that’s being distributed online and the amazing lack of substance. Many of us would be very OK with less articles to read, emails to read, websites to check, etc., if the ones that were posting things were substance heavy and gave us something to really think about.
With subscription revenue in the crapper, everyone wants to attract more advertising revenue. Since it is finite but the number of media outlets is growing every day, you are seeing a frenzy to capture as much of that revenue as possible. How? By attracting as many eyeballs as possible. More content = more traffic, visits, clicks and eyeballs. More eyeballs = a better sales pitch to media buyers.
With everyone trying to become a personal brand, people will climb all over each other to contribute for free to major media outlet in exchange for notoriety, and media outlets are all to happy to invite so many free content contributors to their stables. The result: An army of “experts” by association, a deluge of fast-food quality content, and an erosion of editorial quality.
Did the web kill journalism? No. The web killed editorial integrity.
Well put.
Thanks, Dwayne.
Great post. Amazing to me that so many strong, credible brands are putting themselves at such risk via crap content marketing executions.
It amazes me too.
[...] This post was Twitted by MDMWorldwide [...]
Social media is where it is only because we’ve allowed it to be that way.
“Gurus” write books on the topic because we buy them.
We are built to jump on the bandwagon; the fear of being left behind ensures we do that.
Great thoughts, but maybe a bit too idealistic?
Ana
Idealistic, yes. Too idealistic? I hope not.
Cheers, Ana.