Just who are these experts, analysts, observers peppering headlines these days? Unlike ‘sources’ who leak news, they give views, which are supposedly weightier than those of the hoi polloi because of their expertise or constant monitoring of a specific domain.
Just see them as catchall terms, a shorthand for saying ‘these people are worth listening to’.
Usually, experts refer to academics who’ve done research in the area. Analysts sometimes already have the term in their job title, however junior they may be. As for ‘observers’ or ‘watchers’, the word ‘political’ or ‘industry’ usually precedes these terms. Don’t ask me why they are no economics defence or social watchers – they are generally categorised as ‘experts’ and ‘analysts’.
The onus is on the journalist to demonstrate that the people so described are worthy of the terms. The best way is full name and designation. Or years of experience. (See first instalment on Naming for more.)
Things get trickier for the reader if the interviewees declined to be named. So is this person an expert or not? I have always thought an expert can’t be very expert if he can’t or won’t account for his views. And that analysts whose comments are more anal than analytical should go back to whichever school they came from.
As for political observers, how closely should they be observing? Do they actually know more and have real insights? Most times, the term is used for those who have made a study of politics, in politics or former politicians. (I won’t qualify under this high bar because I have always been in the public viewing gallery, not in the grandstand. Or maybe because my views could be ‘inconvenient’. )
In my past life, I told reporters to keep expanding their pool of contacts, and search for new people to give views. This is because the frequent use of the usual suspects make their views sound predictable and jaded. This, however, depends on the reporters’ ability to corral more ‘political observers’ willing to put their names down.
As for another popular term, ‘industry’ observers who are unnamed, I wouldn’t give their views much credit. It strikes me that it must be a very small industry if reporters cannot find someone who will be named.
These general descriptions of unnamed people are judgment calls made by journalists and work only if readers believe that the journalist has done the due diligence on level of expertise and experience.
In Singapore, I doubt readers ask many questions like whether the unnamed analyst is talking up something that is in his personal or corporate interest. Or whether the supposed expert declined to be named because he would be attacked by fellow experts and doesn’t think he can take the heat.
One thing I noticed though, when someone who has a controversial view is named fully, why do we say the person is ‘brave’?
Bertha Harian 