Expertise should be more than an afterthought
On the increasingly rare occasions when genuine expertise is included in mainstream output, it's often treated as little more than box-ticking. This does a disservice to everyone.
I’m publishing this post exactly 1 week since my appearance on long-running UK daytime TV show ‘This Morning’. Here’s a clip in case you missed it.
Those among my friends and family who saw it felt it went very well, and I certainly enjoyed the experience. But there was one comment that kept coming up a lot.
“They put all that time/effort/money to get you to London1 and into the studio… just so you could be on-screen for less than 3 minutes?”
Yes, the length of time I spent talking about the limitations and problems with the concept of cryogenic freezing of human bodies (it makes sense if you watch the clip) was 3 minute. If that.
You might think that doesn’t really provide enough time for a thorough explanation of the many issues that make cryogenics currently unworkable. And you’d be very right about that. And it surprised a lot of people that the people who make an actual major live TV show would go to such lengths to get someone like me on to share my expertise, only to give me so little time to do it.
It didn’t surprise me, though. Based on my prior experience, it was actually quite generous. And that, I feel, is rather revealing about how little value expertise is often given in the mainstream, even by those who do, at least on paper, recognise its importance.
I do want to make it 100% clear, though, that I am absolutely not criticising those involved in making This Morning. Quite the opposite.
For one, they didn’t have to have me on at all. In my experience, a neuroscientific debunking of claims made by a guest is by no means the default norm on daytime TV shows, which are often more focussed on reality TV show winners and recipes for muffins (both things that were touted in the ‘Coming up on today’s show…’ bit on This Morning before I went on).
Basically, there would have been no obligation or expectation to get me or any other relevant expert on to pour cold water on someone’s dubious claims (although pouring cold water on cryogenics is tricky, because we’re already dealing with temperatures well below the freezing point of water). The fact that someone behind the scenes felt that was required, and made it happen, should be celebrated and encouraged.
Also, let’s be fair: 3 minutes of live screen time on a major mainstream TV show is nothing to be sneezed at. And even if it were, I don’t think it was the plan to give me such a brief time.
I think it was meant to be more balanced, with equal time given to me and the cryogenics guy. Unfortunately, he was long-winded, and was touting his company’s offerings over a video link with a delay. The hosts attempts to get him to wrap up didn’t clearly didn’t land, so I was left with the few minutes remaining before the mandatory ad break to explain why the claims of the other guest, selling essentially an extremely elaborate and expensive form of body disposal, were lacking.
But the main reason I’m cool with how my This Morning appearance panned out? Because over the past however many years, I’ve been the one brought in to offer ‘expert analysis’ on countless TV and radio shows. And my experience with This Morning was so much better than I’ve learned to expect.
The worst experience was many years ago, on a prominent-but-regional BBC Radio show which I won’t name (because I genuinely can’t remember it). I was on to comment about a recent study that had something to do with the psychology of humour.
The other guest was legendary pun-smith Tim Vine. He was introduced. I was introduced. I said “Hello”, and… nothing else. Literally, that was my sole contribution to the discussion. The entire feature was Vine delivering gags and the host chuckling along. And then, the news.
I had actually travelled across town to go to the official studios, at my own expense and taking time away from my actual job, for the live linkup for this. All so I could say ‘hello’.
Sadly, this was not a one-off. Other times perhaps weren’t so egregious, but followed the same basic formula; I agree to go on a live radio show, to offer some expert insight into a particular news story, sacrificing my own time and at my own expense to do so, and it’s only in the last seconds do those running the show think “Oh yeah, that guy’s on the line, better let him say something, I suppose”.
I don’t doubt that running a live broadcast is a tricky job. I’ve seen enough people doing it to appreciate that. And certain elements will be ultimately beyond your control. Other guests overrun, technical issues occur, a particular bit of debate proves for fertile discussion so goes on longer than predicted. I accept all that.
But if my experience is anything to go by (and I’m reliably informed it is), when stuff like that does happen, it’s always the person brought in to provide actual informed analysis or insight who’s ignored, or pushed back, or dropped altogether.
In all the times I’ve been asked to contribute as the ‘expert’ in a mainstream show (as in, a show where expert analysis and discussion isn’t the actual point), I honestly don’t think I’ve ever been the first person to speak. I’m usually last. Meaning, if anyone else overruns, my contribution is reduced.
It’s not that what I or any other ‘expert’ has to say will definitely be more engaging or entertaining or more worthy of broadcasting than what any other contributor brings to the table. But why is it always assumed this will be the case? Meaning our contribution is safe to cut/drop, before we’ve even said a word?
It means I’ve spent a considerable amount of time sat in a studio, alone, having taken several hours out of my day to do so, listening to people ranting on about a particular subject matter that they freely admit they have no insight about, just an opinion.
And then they turn to me and ask for my thoughts, as a qualified expert, in the 90 seconds left before the ad break or news. It’s rather galling, I won’t lie.
And that’s still better than some treatment I’ve received. I was once invited on a (different) regional BBC show to discuss the whole ‘live laugh love’ phenomenon, and all the merchandise around it. I was prepared to offer my thoughts on Toxic Positivity, only to find I was ‘supposed’ to just say why it was all nice and cheerful. Because the other guest ran a local business that sold that shite.
Tip: if you want someone to provide token credibility for a blatant stealth ad flimsily dressed up as a topical discussion, at least tell them ahead of time.
Another time I actively pulled out of a major show, long after agreeing to go on, because they revealed that I was there to ‘get a good argument going’. My actual expert insight on the matter wasn’t relevant, as long as they could find someone who had a contrasting conclusion. I’ve done many thing that aren’t exactly ‘dignified’, but I had to draw the line at contributing to the ‘meaningless argument’ engine that dominates so much of the media.
Before my point gets away from me, I’d like to clarify that I’ve done plenty of things with broadcasters, BBC and beyond, which have been great, where my input has clearly been appreciated and useful. It’s why I’m happy to keep doing it, overall.
It still happens, though. Even though I’m much more particular about what I agree to know, precisely because of prior experiences.
And that’s the thing: I’m a self-employed freelancer who sets his own schedule. I have the option of spending my time contributing to media things, and learning the relevant lessons. Most actual experts aren’t in this position; they have actual day jobs doing the things they’re experts in. That’s why they’re experts.
And if someone generously agrees to give up their time to share their valuable insight with a wider audience, but ends up getting less consideration than the terms and conditions of an online purchase, you’d assume they’d be far less likely to offer to share their insight again in future.
You might think that’s no big deal, because who needs nerds droning on about details. But just a glance at the wider world right now shows just how bad things can get when expertise and insight aren’t respected and valued.
And as long as those responsible for shaping the discourse keep treating hard-earned expertise as the informational equivalent of the sprig of parsley on a plate of chips (as in, something that makes it look better but is ultimately ignored or thrown away), it’s hard to see how anything changes.
If you like well-delivered expertise, you should check out my new book, Why Your Parents Are Hung-Up on Your Phone and What To Do About It. There might be some in there?
I don’t live in London, I live in Cardiff. So that’s a 2+ hour train journey each way, an overnight stay in a conveniently central hotel (as it’s an early start and a long train journey early in the morning is by no means reliable in the UK), and transport between hotel, studio, and train station, invariably in the form of a taxi or equivalent. It’s logistically demanding, and costly, there’s no denying that.
Such a useful insight, thank you.
It can be so hard to translate complicated reality, or complex systems, into lay terms. And the framework for a useful analogy takes more than 90 seconds to describe.
It sounds like your experience would make a good decision aid for future experts (or guide for programme makers).
Hello Doctor, I was the "long winded" fellow who spoke about cryonics on the show. I would like to say that I thought you did a good job with your rebuttal. I agreed with almost all of it. Since you were arguing about what is not possible today and all the exhaustive hurdles that would have to be overcome. I think most of us Cryonicists understand this deeply but the whole point is not what we can do today but rather about the very uncertain future and that is precisely why we ask these questions and pursue the path we do. We are optimist's and gamblers with a very clear and logical Pascal's wager. My only concern was your certainty in regards to irreversible or complete brain damage. You simply do not know what may be possible in the future anymore then how much recovery will take place with a current stroke patient after recovery. That is supposing we don't have Advanced AI, internal Stem cell regeneration, Molecular nanotechnology etc etc. Humility dictates that we just don't know the future so your expertise is limited to the here and now.