The Death of Expertise: Part 1 - How CNN Ruined the News

I was born in 1976, so I do not have first-hand memories of Walter Cronkite or David Brinkley.  I was, however, lucky enough to have a childhood free from 24 hour news.  While CNN began in 1980, my family did not have cable until the early 90's, and my first memories of CNN are about the first Iraq war, Operation Desert Storm.  I grew up knowing the names of only three national news people, Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, and Tom Brokaw.  The evening news came on at 6:30 Eastern after the local news unless there was an event that merited breaking into regular programming.

Even though CNN had been around since 1980, the war of the early 90's really put it on the map because it was the first time people wanted to watch a news story for longer than a few minutes.  Throughout the 80's, there were only a handful of cable news channels.  Of course, after massive ratings spike during the OJ Simpson trial, there was an explosion of cable news networks, all battling for the eyes of viewers primarily by being the first to break a story.  This is what led to the death of expertise.

Go to youtube and watch Walter Cronkite interview politicians or NASA officials.  It is striking how different those interviews look from what the shouting matches we watch today.  Because he was "the most trusted man in America," he got great guests.  Because he came on at 6:30, he had all day to research and learn about the topics on which his expert guests would comment.  You see him pose intelligent questions because he had learned enough to know what to ask.  He ended news broadcasts with "and that's the way it is" unless he had ended the broadcast with a commentary.  This was personal rule of his because he wanted Americans to understand the difference between the news and his personal opinion.  This small gesture may not have been world altering, but it reflects an attitude that we do not see today.

Because of 24 hour news coverage, there is great pressure to begin speaking about any bit of news instantaneously and keep talking until the next "newsworthy" event occurs.  No time is taken to research the story, and the expert guest is whoever answers the phone and can start speaking immediately.  In a way only Aaron Sorkin can satirize, his HBO show the newsroom humorously showed well-meaning producers, scrambling to find a guest, booking a professor from the University of Phoenix to comment on a story about Arizona's immigration law, not realizing the it was an online university having nothing to do with the state of Arizona.   The pressure to break a story first and keep people from changing channels creates conditions that no serious news professional can endure.  Instead, we have newsmen who act more like referees at a boxing match than honest information brokers.  Tom Brokaw and Peter Jennings may not have been Walter Cronkite, but they weren't bringing on two guests to yell at each other until the commercial break.  Lest you think of only the people you disagree with here, there is no difference between CNN and Fox News in this regard.  Every cable news channel, no matter what their political bent, is guilty of ruining the news in this way.

Perhaps as bad as breakdown in civility, the most far reaching effect of 24 hour news is the death of expertise.  As I mentioned earlier, since there isn't time to bring on experts, the news puts up whoever is nearest to a satellite dish.  This has conditions us, not only not to expect an expert opinion, but even to question true experts.  Our favorite news source said one thing, and we put our trust in them, no matter what an expert in the field may say.  At the same time, we are teach our kids that it is important to treat everyone's viewpoint equally (even if it is clearly nuts).  Do we really have to slow down for the flat earth people?  Do we really have to place the viewpoint of a conspiracy theorist on the same footing as a scientist, a holocaust victim, or an astronaut who walked on the moon?  Do we really think that he who shouts loudest wins?  Unfortunately, the current answer to those questions is yes.

Next week, I want to address how social networking and smart phones have contributed to this problem, but for now, let me say this.  The next generation will face big, important issues.  They are issues that require the depth of research that creates experts.  Teaching students about credible sources matters now more than it ever has.  We need our students to understand that while we should treat all people with respect, we do not have to place equal stock in their opinions. We need to teach them that expertise matters.