Right to an opinion vs right to an Equally Weighted opinion: Rant

[Biscuit]

My fellow forum members,

Anyone who knows me in real life knows that I'm a stubborn, irascible fellow who is firmly convinced of my own rightness most of the time. I have kept this aspect of my personality firmly out of the forum for some time, since this is after all a tickling board and I so enjoy all your many contributions. But since there is now a "General" section, and I have come to like and respect so many of you, I think it's time to open up a little, so to speak.

So ...

I have a number of "pet peeves". One of my favorites is a disturbing trend I see in society and specifically in politics today. This is the media and politicians tending to blur the lines between two very different things: The right to an opinion and freedom of expression, and the right to an equally weighted opinion. I see this as dangerous and occasionally more than a little ridiculous.

For instance: I am considered one of the best in my field of over 18 years (not ready to say what to the forum at large quite yet, suffice it to say that I am a professional), and I have also read some books and watched some documentaries on television regarding military history, law, and medicine, all of which I find interesting for entirely different reasons. To someone outside of those fields, I could probably express a fairly complex idea and make them believe I had the education to back it up, because I know some of the commoner ideas and can speak some of the "language".

Do I have the right to an opinion about anything I choose to express it about, certainly, says so right in the constitution. Do I have the right to have that opinion in these fields given equal weight with a professional who has dedicated a significant portion of their life to developing their education and practicing these demanding fields? Don't be absurd. ... "Excuse me sir, do you think I need my appendix out? What's that, you're a canine dentist? That's OK, I just want your opinion. You think it should come out immediately? And you just happen to have a pair of incisor pullers with you that should function just fine for such a simple operation, since they look just like the retractor you saw on ER the other day? Fine. Just let me lay down."

And yet, again and again, we see "activists", "libertarians", (read:busybodies) put in round table discussions with competent professionals, who must then spend most of their time attempting to educate these people as to why their ideas either have already been tried and discarded or are impractical.

To be honest, when a layman attempts to present their opinion as being "every bit as good as mine" in my professional field of endeavor, I find it very insulting. This has nothing to do with intelligence (LOTS of people are brighter than I am, which I freely admit), and everything to do with education and experience, which cannot be gained by reading lightly in a field or watching TV!

When I go to a doctor with a problem, I am paying for their expertise and education. It is part of their duty to educate me enough, in common language, that I have some understanding of the problem and treatment so that I can participate actively in my recovery. It is not among their obligations to attempt to educate me as they would an intern in their field, simply to tell me what I need to know to get better. I make sure I pick an individual I can trust, and then let them do their job. Makes sense to me.

This trend scares me, because it gives the wrong people too much influence, control, and power over our social and political system. You see politicians kowtowing to this particular tendency every day (can you say "committee"). When was the last time you heard of a committee doing anything useful. Really.

I have come to admire and respect a great many member of this forum, and look forward to some intelligent responses. This is particularly aimed at:

DVNC, Pirate, Dave, QJakal, Strelnikov, Myriads, Jeff, EvilQueen

But I am interested in hearing what anyone and everyone has to say, particularly if they don't agree or don't agree completely with me. Love a good fight 😉.

 

[qjakal]

Duel?

You and me both, Biscuit...but..we're on the same side of this issue. Having just built a new house this year, the only spot I may take issue with is the one about professionals being competent in their fields due to time/experience/training etc.! Never expected the # of screwups I had here...we contracted a GC with 30 years in the business, who of course used subcontractors with (theoretically)qualified workman....the horror stories of elctricians, plumber and general mistakes would curl your hair(fortunately I started with none, and hence suffered little loss).. But, your basic rant is valid...as usual (note...was going to put "always", but theat wouldn't leave room for...discussion 😉 ) Q

 

[tklr5150]

Is that why the American Journal of Medicine keeps rejecting my articles? Doesn't knowing ALL the words to "the-knee-bone's-connected-to-the-milk-bone" (or some such) qualify me??😕

 

[strokeofgenius]

I agree....I think....

I agree that everyone has an opinion on everything else...some people just like the sound of their own voice, I suppose.

I once heard something that made a lot of sense to me...went something like this...

"Not every viewpoint is valid. The constitution does not necessarily give anyone who has a thought the right to have that thought bear the same weight as people educated on the subject. You could almost argue the constitution does the exact opposite...it allows all viewpoints and ideas to be exposed and thus demonstrates which ones have no legs to stand on."

Anyone care to help with this quote? If it means what I think it's trying to say, then I agree. 🙂

 

[Haltickling]

A rant on experts...

Biscuit, although you haven't addressed me personally, I feel compelled to reply to your 'rant'. I see that trend here in Germany, too. Whenever something odd happens, a dozen self-professed 'experts' pop out of the void to add their laymen's view and sell it as 'expert knowledge'. For example, German TV seems to have interviewed about every single person who ever visited Afghanistan to comment on the ongoings there. The voices of the real experts who have stayed and worked there for many years get drowned out by the sheer number of largely unqualified, subjective views.

I agree that there are fields which require some professional experience and specific knowledge, like in most scientific and medical topics. But there are a lot of 'gray' areas. Politics, sports, sex, humor, traveling, psychology, religion, to name just a few. Each of those is related to everybody's lives, to different subjective expectations and experiences. Being a successful politician doesn't necessarily mean he/she has studied politology at an university. A wise man/woman often knows more about human reactions than many experienced psychologists. And of course, everybody knows EVERYTHING about sex, humor, and his/her favorite sports.

The critical moment of truth comes when a journalist/politician CLAIMS to know as much as a specialist, and therefore claims the right to voice his/her opinion on an equal footing with said specialist. A clever journalist/politician will try to avoid this situation, either by answering questions nobody had asked, or by placing new questions him-/herself. The real task of a journalist should be to ask the right questions, not to state his/her own opinion (except in a comment clearly marked as such), because that is what we call 'manipulation'. He/she even has the duty to doubt the expert's statement, by researching for other experts' opinions, or by revealing unsolved questions in the expert's statement. We should never forget that learned experts have erred terribly in their individual era: The earth is not flat, the sun and the stars do not revolve around us, and there are smaller particles than atoms.

I have been a professional in the tourism business for over 25 years now, and I still don't know half of every aspect in that area. But I wouldn't hesitate to call myself being an expert. And I always fall in that trap to get into heated discussions with journalists who shoot over their own professional boundaries, claiming they know more about tourism than I do. Only to think of the recently deceased French chansonnier Gilbert Bécaud later. One of his chansons is called "Je sais" (I know), and it ends with the words "Le sage le sait: Il sait qu'on sait jamais" (the wise man knows: he knows that nobody ever knows).

 

[Biscuit]

Exactly

what I was looking for. Thank you for this spate of intelligent, well thought out answers. To clarify my own viewpoint somewhat:

I am not in any sense suggesting that those with experience in a given professional endeavor are infallible (I'm certainly not!), but rather saying that I am honestly fearful of the constantly blurring lines between freedom expression and political correctness eventually putting us in a bad situation (can you say, Vietnam...).

Of course the experts are sometimes wrong, and I hasten to say that I specifically exclude ethical questions and morality, since I firmly believe that they are almost without exception the province of the individual (the exception being when this freedom impinges upon others).

I am talking about specific professional fields being publicly debated by people with no credentials whatsoever, and this being brainlessly validated and encouraged by a media obsessed with "everyone having their say". Having "written a book" is NOT a credential, since anyone may write about anything in our free country. For instance, most of the books written in my own field are widely acknowledged by professionals as not being worth the paper they're written on from a practical standpoint.

I despise cats. Hate them with a passion. Would like nothing better than to see the damned things lined up and shot. I certainly have a right to this opinion, but not the right to begin slaughtering felines at random. But I digress... (that peeve is for another thread!)

I think it is popular these days to pretend that we're all equal. Poppycock and balderdash, as RedInjun would say. I happily admit my ignorance of and disinterest in any number of areas, and am perfectly happy in the knowledge that those in those areas can get along quite well without my uninformed opinion. We are NOT all equal, we are all different, and I for one wouldn't want there to be more than one of ME!

This kind of attitude, carried to extremes, can be damaging to society as a whole, and VERY irritating to yours truly!

Oh, and ...

QJakal - I feel your pain. Those situations can leave one, er, frustrated (I know exactly what you mean, trust me, been there more than once personally and professionally).

Tklr - LOL!

Hal - thanks for your insightful look into this issue. I'm glad you took the time to reply, and hope to hear from you again! It's the "drowning out of the real experts" that scares me, given how generally intellectually lazy the general population can be. Unfortunately, they show an alarming tendency to believe what they're told, if it's from enough sources, and the ignorant seem to be outnumbering the informed in all too many public forums. Those are VOTERS (shudder!).

 

[Dave2112]

Biscuit, I know exactly what you are talking about. For someone like me it goes even farther, and maybe takes a turn in the other direction. Those who know me know that I'm one of those "Jack of all Trades" people, even though I HATE that moniker. It's mostly because I have a high IQ and a near-photographic memory. I'm actually an EXPERT on very few things, but I have a working knowledge of more than most.

But I wind up getting it from both extremes....either the "Why can't you help me with this, you know everything" school, or the "Who the hell are you?" school from those who've "studied" a certain topic.

Unfortunatly, society is based more on opinion than fact, and truth be told, it's probably better that way. Without opinion, there could be no arguement, and then we'd all be living in Ayn Rand's "Anthem".

I hear what you're saying, and I could go into hours and hours of discussion on this topic. But after all is said and done, I always come back to the more esoteric points. Know what you know, do what you do, and help where you can.

I know this might not make a lot of sense, but think on it. Some things go beyond knowledge and facts and must simply be felt. Put yourself above it as a "Citizen of the World" and a "Scholar of the Cosmos".

My 2 credits.😎

 

[Haltickling]

Biscuit, there will always be a much greater number of misinformed or uninformed persons than 'real experts'. So if everybody gets the same attention and time in the media, the ignorant majority will always drown out the specialists' views. And it's the majority that counts at elections, so politicians tend to prefer quantity over quality in public. That's the joy and the pain of a democracy... 😛 And that's the real problem behind 'media equality', as you state so correctly!

On the other hand, it's the generalists like Dave which often discover the greater frame BEHIND the specialists' views. In Germany, we have the expression "to be unable to see the trees because the forest blocks the view". In this case, the reverse conclusion is also true: Specialists may know every detail of each tree, but they often can't see the forest as a whole! Another German commonplace: Specialists improve the knowledge of constantly smaller details, until they know all abouth nothing... 😀

 

[MistressMia]

Biscuit,

You didn't address me personally, but here are my .02 cents:

This BTW, is a great topic (thanks for bringing it up). You have a very valid point and as far as a debat goes, I can't give you one because I agree with you and everyone else that's posted thus far.

I just want to emphasis that opininions, no matter how weighted they are should at least be aired out. Reason for this is that you never know what exactly will spark a "new" idea/solution.

Ultimately, you are correct in your observation: Not all opinions are of equal weight and therefore it's up to each individual to do the research and weed out what they want to believe.

In other words, in this information age, only those willing to educate themselves will be informed enough to make the decision on what to believe. Anyway, this is just my "fly-weight" opinion. 😉

 

[Dave2112]

Hal and Mia...

...well said!😀

And thanks Biscuit, for bringing such an interesting topic to the Forum.😎

 

[red indian]

Love a good fight too!

So who wrote the American Constitution? that was a sort of Committee was it not?

 

[qjakal]

Wrote it?

4 guys got drunk on a Friday night, red...and ...*voila*..... Tis magic, my friend, magic! Q

 

[red indian]

Well at least you wrote yours down.......

We never bothered.

 

[dvnc]

yeah, and you folks got parliamentary rule WITHOUT having to flee across the Atlantic. 😉

Biscuit, I'm in agreement with ya, brother. I dig what Mia and Dave2112 said, and have little to add. So long as I know the qualification of the opinion, I tend to filter the input, and ignore the voicings of those I don't respect. Too many dopes with microphones and network paychecks. Alas. 😉

dvnc

 

[Biscuit]

Davis (and everybody else),

Let me be even a ilttle more specific. Generalists have proven their worth in many fields since time immemorial, mostly because their broader working knowledge of many fields allows them to integrate various viewpoints. Almost every famous inventor has been a generalist, for instance!

What bothers me is when people with little or no hard information or experience tout themselves as expert commentators (which mean that they're very good at making comments, not that the comments have any particular worth!). I find this frightening in many areas, as entirely too much sensitive material is making it's way into the hands of crusading busybodies with too much time on their hands. I do not believe that we actually need to know every detail of government, nor do I believe it is in the national best interest for us to. I strongly believe in being very careful who you give a job or authority to, and then letting them do their job in peace.

I don't have a problem with these people having their little crusade(pick one!), as long as they stop putting them in public debates with people who are trying to do their job, and then calling these people "elitist" when they honestly say "there isn't any way to explain that to you", or "the issue is complicated". Yeah, it's just doubletalk when an MD can't explain the pathology of a new virus in a 10-second news bleep, when it's taken him 4 years of study to isolate and understand it. After all, nothing is that complicated, right? Right?

"They're just trying to make things seem complicated, {the crusader complains}, when it's actually quite simple. I'm right, uninformed and unwilling to learn though I may be, and they're wrong. Their professional opinion means nothing alongside mine, because, I'm LOUDER than they are. People who really know what they're talking about rarely scream their subject matter out, except in frustration at being forced into these situations.

I have read all your replies with great interest. Thanks for taking the time to reply.

🙂

PS Mia, thanks for your input. You were actually one of the first to come to mind, but I hadn't seen you post recently. Hope you didn't feel excluded. 😉

 

[Myriads]

Ok, I'll play.

If I read his post correctly, the basic point of the question posed by Biscuit is: Everyone has the right to express their opinons, but these opinions are not equal (based on information/education level of the speaker), and the trend of presenting them as such is dangerous. Furthermore, one can infer that he is wondering if the presence of 'bad' opinions being presented on equal par with 'good' ones is destructive or bad in some form.

The first part of this is a good point, and is most likely true. The loss of 'good' information in the signal of uninformed opinion is indeed a problem, and one that the web is a good example of. So I do agree with his basic thoughts. Equaly weighted presentation of opinions ('bad' and 'good') can be dangerous to the unmindful.

But this leaves the second question Biscuit poses, is there any value to having these amature opinions about? On the face of it, no seems to be the answer as they do harm through seeding confusion.

But I see worth in them. The presence of 'bad' or uninformed opinions can be a very good thing. They will drive the educated, and the expert, to work harder to discuss their views and reasoning. This forces a closer examination of personal thinking by the very experts who can benifit from it the most. More then once I have discovered new insights, or had my best realizations when I have been put in the position of needing to clarify my thinking so I could refute a 'bad' opinion or point. A very positive result for me. And if my ideas were of import (a rare thing 🙂, perhaps others.

The presence of these uninformed opinions forces experts into the public realms to discuss. To describe. To educate. It prevents ideas from becoming the lone property of 'guilds' of educated people, who become an unquestioned meritocracy. It keeps things open and dynamic. It leads to the formation of the basis for critical thinking and review that knocks down superstition, and 'bad' ideas that prey upon the weak, ignorant, and fearful. When one HAS to evaluate an opinion for validity oneself, one is far less apt to swallow some line of BS spouted from a pulpit of apparent authority.

So my view: These uninformed opinions in fact, help the true ones grow stronger and grow in valuable ways. They are the weeds that challenge the gardner to higher effort, and force him to pay more attention to the plants he values. They teach him to recognize new weeds also.

Yes, uninformed opinion presented as 'equal' with informed opinion is a very bad thing in many ways. They can do great damage. That's regretful. But ideas don't come with bullshit level warnings attached. A mindful human must develop the skills to sort the fact from the fancy, and learn who they can trust as information sources. They also need to know how to critically evaluate the flood of information that can be gathered, or even if they want to do so. So sitting in a brew of 'good' and 'bad' opinion, in my eyes is healthy, and helps to seperate the truly awake, from those that are sleeping through their lives, eating whatever ideas land before them.

As always,
Myriads

 

[Biscuit]

I still think

that, through my own ineptitude in presentation and expressing myself, I am not quite getting my point across. Let me try yet again:

I don't have a problem with debate and discussion, and don't really believe in information hoarding. I DO object to the media legimizing people who would otherwise have "justly" no voice greater than one among many with lofty sounding titles like "commentator" or "pundit". I don't have a problem with debate, but I think the debators should have some idea of what they're talking about.

I think that not insisting that people earn the right to have their opinions taken seriously, we risk turning politics into a trailer-trash filled episode of a daytime talk show. Do these people have a right to an opinion, certainly, and they have as much say in the political process as I do with their all-important vote, if they choose to exercise it.

I am fearful of complex ideas and situations being "dumbed down" (read-simplified) for popular consumption, and then decisions being made on the basis of this incomplete, it'll-all-be-ok view of the world. I've seen this time and again I'll give you an example:

The US has made it a point to constantly pump aid, food, resources into countries like Haiti. Now, I'm not looking to pick a fight here, but let's be realistic about this. Experts have said over and over again that the country is a proverbial lost cause. They have NO natural resources to speak of, no meaningful exports other than hungry refugees. Experts have said over and over again that we should be trying to assist in national industrial growth, instead of short-lived food grants that leave everyone alive for just one more day, and just as hungry afterwards.

That is NOT a solution, in my eyes. Yet, every time Congress or the Executive make a move to at least reduce this money-hole spending, they are inundated with television and newspaper ads talking about starving children and showing poor, pathetic mothers holding them. Emotion takes over, reason is abandoned, we pump more "aid" at them, and the whole cycle starts again. I believe in a hand-up, not a hand-out.

That was just an example, please don't send me picures of hungry children in retaliation, folks. I strongly believe that change and improvement have to be self-motivated to be truly effective, at both a national and personal level. I think that, in the long run, helping people to help themselves is a better answer. But some kids have to be kicked out of the house, or they'll live off of you until they're thirty (can you say basement-dweller?).

Commence fruit throwing!

🙂

 

[Slappy McGee]

this looks like a fun game to play....

there have been a lot of great things said in this thread, and I agree with Biscuit's ideas.....

just wanted to mention a few things kinda related to the topic....

If you ever want to be DISRESPECTED for being an "expert" in a field, try psychology... now I am by no means an actuall expert, but I do have a degree, and for some reason, my, and from what I hear, many other people's psychological advice is taken with much less than even a grain of salt. If I had a dollar for every time some jackass asked me for "psychological advice" then disagreed with me because it wasnt what they wanted to hear, I could afford to put the archives back up! Surely psychology is not an exact science, but there is a difference between people who have extensively studied human personality and people who have not. People respect the advice from other "professionals" far more than from someone in the field of psychology for some reason. my opinion is that people just seem to tink they have everything all figured out, and how could any damn shrink know what is good for them...oh well,

anyway, figured this was a good place to unleash this rant, at least it brought it out of me, I suppose.

another interesting thought this thread brought to my mind.....was everyone aware that it is unethical to use the title "Doctor" in front of one's name if one is advertising any service that does not directly relate to the said Ph.D? for example, if I had a doctorate in physics, I should not advertise my title if I were doing work on the side as an electrician...

just thought this kinda matched up with how people "should" treat their expert opinions, but unfortunately, slap the title "Dr." in front of a name, and the world thinks they know everything.

*sigh*

 

[Dave2112]

Slappy, you bring up a good point. It's like that damnable "Dr. Laura" who goes around telling people how to live their lives. I don't know what she actually does, but her Doctorate is in Podiatry or something like that, and she passes herself off as a psychologist.

...Bitch.😎

 

[MN Tikl]

Jumping in the "fray"

Not much of a "fray" here, more of a mutual back-slap, but what the hell. I'll try to drum up some controversy, as I love a good fight as much as anybody.

In my opinion, in the realm of politics (your original example), most *anybody* has a right to voice their opinion, no matter how inane or uninformed that it may be -- and everybody's opinion has *some* value. The discourse of politics is often shaped by listening to the lowest common denominator of human speech: the uninformed demagogue. Case in point is the past election cycle. Listening to television talk shows was like entering a psychological war zone: vicious accusations flying left and right. I am a liberal, and was often appalled by the charges of "coup d'etat" and "treason" leveled at Gore and all Democrats by the Right. Many of the accusers spoke as if they knew something about Florida's election laws, and about the Constitution - yet they clearly knew virtually nothing. Their remarks were completely irresponsible. In fact, most of the commentary we hear on all political talk shows says more about the speaker than the topic at hand. But, in the realm of politics, there is value in knowing something about a speaker. It helps you to size up your enemy, the better to learn how to respond to their ridiculous assertions. In a broader sense, it gives you an accurate gauge of how idiotic many people are. (sometimes you've got to actually hear something to believe it) In my opinion, there is great value in knowing what people's biases and prejudices are -- when you understand other's better, you can communicate better with them (and you are better able to change their minds). On a related note, seeing uninformed talking heads attack people also acts as an aid in determining what a particular show's audience *wants* to believe. Most of these shows simply pander to their target audience. In most of human discourse -- and especially politics -- people believe what they want to believe. Their logic is inductive, rather than deductive. They start with the conclusion, then pay attention to only those things that support their foregone conclusion, ignoring the rest.

I don't *condone* the spread of misinformation -- but, as has been alluded to by others -- misinformation creates opportunities for those of us who do our homework and actually understand the issues. Those with superior knowledge of an issue have the opportunity to educate. They have the opportunity to lead. And in the marketplace of ideas, the best way to weed out the bad ideas from the good ones is to air them all out, to throw them all against the wall and see what sticks.

In your original post, you state, "again and again, we see "activists", "libertarians", (read:busybodies) put in round table discussions with competent professionals, who must then spend most of their time attempting to educate these people as to why their ideas either have already been tried and discarded or are impractical.

I see this as a positive! People *should* understand public policy, not follow it blindly. When people spew half-baked ideas, the educated *should* "educate these people as to why their ideas either have already been tried and discarded or are impractical". We need more of such discourse -- and less of the mindless demogoguery that masquerades for political discourse.

Ok -- that's my best shot at ginning up a debate.


😛

 

[Biscuit]

MNTickler

Minneapolis, Minnesota, Minniemouse, ?? etc...

First of all, thanks for the info. I actually don't go in much for idle flattery, and only spoke about those people whose ideas I personally found cogent. Those who know me know that I don't give compliments lightly or loosely, just a personality trait 😉.

To answer your viewpoint:

I actually disagree with this one. I'm talking about people that are in public life trying to do their job being harassed, and you're telling me that it's their JOB to educate the ignorant majority? Horseapples! I make it a point to keep my opinion to myself unless I have something useful to say. I wouldn't have a problem with these media farces, except that many of these busybody types are what I like to call "willfully ignorant". They don't have all the information, and don't want it, because it may interfere with their opinions! And the media props them up and gives them legitimacy simply by giving them airtime.

I'm NOT talking about public relations types, whose job IS to attempt to get complex issues across. I'm talking about those actually doing the work, again and again being reduced to defending themselves and their ideas to people who simply don't have the background to understand their defence. Most Congressional committees are a perfect example!

Let's take people away from vital work, harass them, and then complain that the vital work isn't being accomplished quickly enough (can you say Irony?). Congress members telling the CDC how to do their job following Sept. 11th, and coming up with "new" recommendations for funding that those poor people have been beggin for for years! And they have the Gall to take credit for it after underfunding them for years (can you tell I'd be a very poor politician 😉 ).

"Opinions are like assholes, everybody's got one."

Thanks, MontanaTickler... 😉

 

[shark]

I would love to make a reply on this topic,but it would be the longest so far and I type too slowly. My biggest peeve is government bureaucrats making their opinions into law while they can't actually grasp the situation at hand,or have decided they are right,right or wrong.The list is too long..............

 

[Ayla ny]

a word from the artsy fartsy sect

there always have been... and always will be... very vocal people with incorrect information. it is up to those seeking (or being inflicted with) the opinion/information to give it weight or to dismiss it. in my opinion (yup, here’s another one) this can only be done after considering the source as well as the information. there are a few ‘experts’ tho whose opinion (religious, political, etc.) I think to be dead wrong but because of the time and thought they have put into these theories/opinions I feel they deserve consideration... before I dismiss them. 🙂

know what you believe and why.

 

[qjakal]

artsy fartsy?

For some reason that is making me smile...I can just picture Ayla with a stern look on her sweet face typing in "artsy fartsy"...it's killing me for some reason!!! 😀 😀 🙂 Q

 

[evilqueen]

Twenty-four hours is a long damn time to fill.

That's what we say at my house whenever something mind-bogglingly stupid appears on TV, especially the news. It was brought to mind by what Hal said about all the "experts" trotted out to talk about Afghanistan. People used to think that TV provided an unbiased point of view based on expert analysis. Even if you still believe that, which among the many networks and channels are you gonna go with? Selecting what's "true" from the proliferation and diversity of broadcast opinion is as exhausting as making any other product choice.

After all, that's what TV moves, is product. Product is the bottom line. That's why I am confused by arguments that suggest that the media is at the mercy of self-named experts who push their way into the limelight. Huh???? The media is hungry to find someone, anyone we might listen to, anyone so long as he/she keeps us tuned in till the next commercial. They gotta fill airtime, and just about anyone will do.

I've been trying to figure out just what all you're referring to in regards to public figures challenged by "experts" and roundtable discussions among people of unequal expertise - Meet the Press? Politically Incorrect? Anything on FOX News or CNN? Nobody's forced to appear in such formats, and public figures as well as pundits have their agendas for appearing. Press conferences? I want to see public figures challenged; and how they handle stupid questions is as enlightening as anything else they may say.

Whew. That's all my snot-stuffed little head can manage. I would've responded sooner but this cold is keeping me down. At least Myriads and MNTkl answered (better'n I could've) the questions I thought you were asking until each new clarification showed different.😀 😉 😛 I'd like to wrap by saying something insightful about the yin and yang nature of creative and pragmatic thinkers, and the need for both, but I find I don't know the field well enough to expand on my thought and so (mercifully falling into a deep, Nyquil-induced sleep).