Should Journalists Consider Vetting the Credentials of Experts for News Stories?

In the business of news broadcasting, trust is the new currency.

For ages, journalism has relied heavily on expert sources to foster this trust by breaking down complex issues and ideas for the public. Expert sources have enriched stories and broadened understanding of important issues, thereby enhancing the trust currency.

But what happens when some of the ‘experts’ cannot be trusted? Is it then time for journalists to consider vetting experts for their stories?

In October 2015, Wayne Simmons, a recurring guest on FOX News who claimed to have had decades of experience working with the CIA, was arrested for pretending to be a terrorism analyst. For over a decade, he was the go-to expert on security and terrorism-related subjects on the news channel.

This became a red flag for media organizations worldwide, and questions lingered on how giant media organizations could get it wrong.

In more than one instance, we have heard of guests who the media referred to as professors, doctors, security experts, economists, etc. but don’t possess any credentials to support their titles.

Recently, and still fresh on our minds, a cross-examination on live TV laid bare a man whose face is all too familiar on local TV channels. He traverses TV stations across the board, analyzing everything under the sun.

But to his admission, he possesses not a single qualification to support his confessed virtuosity in governance, theology, and even security expertise.

In the newsroom, journalists say that your stories are as good as your sources, including expert sources.

The catchphrase: ‘find-a-quote’ is all too familiar when referring to how journalists must keep a handful of experts in their notebooks. It is almost a rule of the thumb-you cannot file a report without the voice of an expert. And so, this puts pressure on journalists to always find ‘experts’ to mouth every piece of insight even when it means fishing them from the wrong places.

The news industry has come to rely on them because of their self-promotion and frequency of media appearances.

Sometimes the considerations are absurd and mundane-which ‘expert’ is good for TV or newspaper to mean-is fluent and has the right intonation and diction to die for.

What this has continued to breed, sadly, is the recycling of ‘experts, ’ something that has demeaned the Godzilla of journalism-objectivity.

So, should media organizations start establishing the credibility of experts before using their services? The answer is in the affirmative.

Audiences are at the heart of journalism, and journalists must offer credible news. Therefore, journalists have no option but to get out of the wheelhouse and research experts’ educational and professional backgrounds.

It does not harm, for instance, to reach out to professional bodies and find the legitimacy of their guests’ qualifications.

Online research could also help, although it is no panacea. There is a lot one can gather from online profiles and past commentaries.

Are there inconsistencies in their career timeline? A gap in a career history can inform a journalist on whether one is appropriate to comment on certain topics in a given industry or not.

Some may argue that you don’t have to possess the educational background to be an expert in an area; that experience and research can mold you into one. Granted, of course, this cannot bar anyone from commentating. But it can only be fair and honest to make this known to a journalist and, most importantly, audiences.

In the final analysis, it is also imperative for media organizations to have a policy that curbs or declares a conflict of interest for self-interested analysts. All in a bid to rebuild the dwindling trust in the media.

Journalism is a deadline-driven business, and missing the deadline is dreadful. But how worse would it get when you have the wrong expert in your story? It does not stack up. Some research and fact-checking should be emphasized.