News1 min ago
Stating The Obvious
Does anyone else feel patronized when ' experts ' in a particular field are called on to comment on a subject
( more often than not , a news item ) and proceed to 'educate' us the viewers / listners - by stating the blatantly obvious ?
Example - I was listening to a news item this evening on the difficulty that a lot of people are experiencing in making their mortgage payments
On came this ' expert ' on mortages - who proceeded to tell us that ' when interest rates rises , mortgage interest rates usually rise, which means that a lot of people on a tight budget will experience difficulty meeting their payments'
Obvious , or what ? - hardly, rocket science .
( more often than not , a news item ) and proceed to 'educate' us the viewers / listners - by stating the blatantly obvious ?
Example - I was listening to a news item this evening on the difficulty that a lot of people are experiencing in making their mortgage payments
On came this ' expert ' on mortages - who proceeded to tell us that ' when interest rates rises , mortgage interest rates usually rise, which means that a lot of people on a tight budget will experience difficulty meeting their payments'
Obvious , or what ? - hardly, rocket science .
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Bazile. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Yes, on a sort of related subject, here is an example:
I've seen a rise in the number of "Terror Experts" called on to comment on TV news channels such as CNN etc, and these experts (along with their silly title) just make me laugh. All they do is repeat the news, using lots of "terror" terms in between, and meanwhile have probably never left the country in their whole life, yet, they are still 'renowned' experts in this field.
(And what about "War on Terror" ... its 'War on Terror-i-s-m', get it right)
I've seen a rise in the number of "Terror Experts" called on to comment on TV news channels such as CNN etc, and these experts (along with their silly title) just make me laugh. All they do is repeat the news, using lots of "terror" terms in between, and meanwhile have probably never left the country in their whole life, yet, they are still 'renowned' experts in this field.
(And what about "War on Terror" ... its 'War on Terror-i-s-m', get it right)
Not patronised. Many of these experts have a wealth of experience and some extremely interesting facts / opinions / viewpoints / discussions to express, given sufficient time.
Unfortunately, after an hour and a half in a taxi getting to the studio, 20 minutes in make-up, they have, at best, the 30 seconds that the media allows them to express their viewpoint etc before the inevitable...
"I'm sorry, X, we have to leave it there.
Now we have a heart-warming story about some fluffy kittens.....".
Is it any wonder that it sounds obvious and glib?
Unfortunately, after an hour and a half in a taxi getting to the studio, 20 minutes in make-up, they have, at best, the 30 seconds that the media allows them to express their viewpoint etc before the inevitable...
"I'm sorry, X, we have to leave it there.
Now we have a heart-warming story about some fluffy kittens.....".
Is it any wonder that it sounds obvious and glib?
Well how about an opinion from one of those "experts" you see on TV?
I'm a university professor and a goverment advisor for the last three governments and I am said to be an world-class authority in my own scientific field of expertise.
Now that I've finished blowing my own trumpet, I can also tell you that I've appeared as an "expert" on various TV channels over the last few years including news programmes. Here's how it works.
A normal factual TV programme never has a single "expert" talking throughout the programme. To provide an unbiased viewpoint, more than one "expert" is featured in order to provide the viewer with alternative theories to those that may have been put forward earlier. The intention then is that the viewer comes to his own conclusions based on the information supplied. Usually, the viewer sides with one expert or another.
An "expert" featured to explain a news item however, responds in a totally different way.
(Continued)
I'm a university professor and a goverment advisor for the last three governments and I am said to be an world-class authority in my own scientific field of expertise.
Now that I've finished blowing my own trumpet, I can also tell you that I've appeared as an "expert" on various TV channels over the last few years including news programmes. Here's how it works.
A normal factual TV programme never has a single "expert" talking throughout the programme. To provide an unbiased viewpoint, more than one "expert" is featured in order to provide the viewer with alternative theories to those that may have been put forward earlier. The intention then is that the viewer comes to his own conclusions based on the information supplied. Usually, the viewer sides with one expert or another.
An "expert" featured to explain a news item however, responds in a totally different way.
(Continued)
Firstly, you have to remember that before the interview takes place, the studio manager tells the interviewer and the "expert" that they have x number of minutes "on air". Under no circumstances will additional time be given.
The "expert" then has to carefully go over the questions he has been told he will be asked to work out how best to answer them in the time available. He has to be concise, clear, unambiguous and confine himself to answering the question without wandering off the subject. Believe me, it's not always easy and takes considerable concentration.
However, here's the important part. The "expert" has to have the ability and experience to convey the information to the viewers in such a way that virtually all people watching will understand what he's getting at. That's the difficult part.
You need to realise that the channel viewers will potentially have been educated from someone who has left school with a poor standard of education to those who have attained qualifications at the highest level of academia. The "expert" is there to make sure that no matter where the viewers are in this class structure, they will all understand what he is getting at.
So inevitably, it often seems that these "experts" are talking down to the viewer where the intention is otherwise. You need to remember that no matter what education you've had, there's always someone who's had less education than you and may be unable to grasp fundamental concepts and common-sense that seem like universal knowledge to yourself.
Although these things may be obvious to 99% of the population, somewhere out there is that 1% that will not understand unless it's explained in logical steps, which is what you've seen in the news item.
TV is quite rightly classless and has to cater for the enlightened and the ignorant so don't be too offended when you see such interviews. What's blatanty obvious to you is
The "expert" then has to carefully go over the questions he has been told he will be asked to work out how best to answer them in the time available. He has to be concise, clear, unambiguous and confine himself to answering the question without wandering off the subject. Believe me, it's not always easy and takes considerable concentration.
However, here's the important part. The "expert" has to have the ability and experience to convey the information to the viewers in such a way that virtually all people watching will understand what he's getting at. That's the difficult part.
You need to realise that the channel viewers will potentially have been educated from someone who has left school with a poor standard of education to those who have attained qualifications at the highest level of academia. The "expert" is there to make sure that no matter where the viewers are in this class structure, they will all understand what he is getting at.
So inevitably, it often seems that these "experts" are talking down to the viewer where the intention is otherwise. You need to remember that no matter what education you've had, there's always someone who's had less education than you and may be unable to grasp fundamental concepts and common-sense that seem like universal knowledge to yourself.
Although these things may be obvious to 99% of the population, somewhere out there is that 1% that will not understand unless it's explained in logical steps, which is what you've seen in the news item.
TV is quite rightly classless and has to cater for the enlightened and the ignorant so don't be too offended when you see such interviews. What's blatanty obvious to you is
I think Waldo it's because the questioner meant "unmistakably". I agree that blatantly can be used but nearly always patently is the word that is meant even if it's not used. Blatant in general means "deliberate regard less of effect" generally applied to actions rather than statements. Just sounded like it wasn't what the questioner meant.
Did anybody else have a secret giggle at theprof's excellent answer? He explains the importance of being concise in interviews and then takes up three answer spaces to explain why? It was a very informed answer and I appreciated it, but couldn't help seeing the funny side. Apologies to theprof!
In answer to the question, I do sometimes feel patronized, but you only have to acknowledge the popularity of programmes like Big Brother to understand why News Editors feel the need to keep things simple for a certain section of the audience.
However, I do wish the 24 hour news stations would dig a little deeper into stories rather than re-cycle the same news stories every fifteen minutes. I do feel they have wasted an excellent opportunity to add depth to their broadcasts.
In answer to the question, I do sometimes feel patronized, but you only have to acknowledge the popularity of programmes like Big Brother to understand why News Editors feel the need to keep things simple for a certain section of the audience.
However, I do wish the 24 hour news stations would dig a little deeper into stories rather than re-cycle the same news stories every fifteen minutes. I do feel they have wasted an excellent opportunity to add depth to their broadcasts.
Loosehead, I used the word "blatantly" because that was the word that Bazile used in the original post. I agree that "patently" would do just as well.
Suffragette, I like your thinking. I can see the irony and I've had a good laugh over it. The only reason I went into so much detail is that a lot of the stuff that takes place before, during and after these interviews is not known to the public.
No offence taken!
Suffragette, I like your thinking. I can see the irony and I've had a good laugh over it. The only reason I went into so much detail is that a lot of the stuff that takes place before, during and after these interviews is not known to the public.
No offence taken!
It is good to know that any sense of patronization one perceives is not as a result of deliberate intention by these experts .
However it is not blatantly ... oops , sorry - patently obvious
why these experts , featured to explain a news item ,go through all that trouble i.e , battling traffic to get to the studio , spending 20 minutes or so in make - up , to then be restricted to a 15 second slot ' on air '
Surely it cannot be soley ,through some sense of altruism ... can it ? ..... or is it worth their while , financially
( and no , there is nothing wrong with that )
However it is not blatantly ... oops , sorry - patently obvious
why these experts , featured to explain a news item ,go through all that trouble i.e , battling traffic to get to the studio , spending 20 minutes or so in make - up , to then be restricted to a 15 second slot ' on air '
Surely it cannot be soley ,through some sense of altruism ... can it ? ..... or is it worth their while , financially
( and no , there is nothing wrong with that )
where does "bleedin obvious!" fit in?
also...whenever there is a disaster of sorts, "trained counsellors" are first on the scene (even before the claims lawyers)....
Where do these "counsellors" spent the rest of their time?
Are they kept locked in cupboards, secret bunkers, on an island, or somewhere?
also...whenever there is a disaster of sorts, "trained counsellors" are first on the scene (even before the claims lawyers)....
Where do these "counsellors" spent the rest of their time?
Are they kept locked in cupboards, secret bunkers, on an island, or somewhere?
Bazile:
Patronisation is never the intention. It's all down to trying to ensure that all viewers can appreciate the points that are being made regardless of age or intelligence.
I know that altruism plays a part in an experts readiness to appear on TV but I've known people who appear purely in order to maintain their position at the apex of their own particular discipline. Some experts thrive on such appearances.
The fees for appearances are not fantastic, but they are reasonably high and I've never had cause to complain. Appearance fees can therefore be regarded as a nice little earner. Incurred travelling expenses etc are also refunded along with meals where appropriate. I've even been picked up by helicopter twice over the last few years when I was hundreds of miles from the studios. Generous out of hours travelling arrangements are also made.
All the same, when I'm needed at uni or elsewhere, I do sometimes decline the requests to appear on TV as I'm not particularly publicity mad.
People do have different reasons for appearing in these programmes. Personally, although I am an acknowledged expert now in my own scientific fields, it's been hard work and very competitive to get here, not least because I'm from a reasonably modest background.
Kind people have given a lot to get me where I am today and I owe a great deal to many people. For the last few years I've been doing my best to return the favour by trying to convey scientific information to the general public in a manner easily understandable by all - and I'm not being patronising, honest!
Patronisation is never the intention. It's all down to trying to ensure that all viewers can appreciate the points that are being made regardless of age or intelligence.
I know that altruism plays a part in an experts readiness to appear on TV but I've known people who appear purely in order to maintain their position at the apex of their own particular discipline. Some experts thrive on such appearances.
The fees for appearances are not fantastic, but they are reasonably high and I've never had cause to complain. Appearance fees can therefore be regarded as a nice little earner. Incurred travelling expenses etc are also refunded along with meals where appropriate. I've even been picked up by helicopter twice over the last few years when I was hundreds of miles from the studios. Generous out of hours travelling arrangements are also made.
All the same, when I'm needed at uni or elsewhere, I do sometimes decline the requests to appear on TV as I'm not particularly publicity mad.
People do have different reasons for appearing in these programmes. Personally, although I am an acknowledged expert now in my own scientific fields, it's been hard work and very competitive to get here, not least because I'm from a reasonably modest background.
Kind people have given a lot to get me where I am today and I owe a great deal to many people. For the last few years I've been doing my best to return the favour by trying to convey scientific information to the general public in a manner easily understandable by all - and I'm not being patronising, honest!
the world is full of idiots, imbeciles, children, neanderthal types, under-educated doofuses, ill-educated chavs, senile people, etc etc, so what may be patently and blatantly obvious to you, will not be to everyone, and as the prof has said, the news has to be understood by everyone - possibly these people more so, as they perhaps wouldn't sit and read large well written and thorough articles about the subjects, so almost soundbite chunks of news is all they may know.
Bazile:
I'm a biochemistry professor at one of the better known UK universities and a visiting professor at a couple of others including a medical school. I am also a member of what you might call senior management at the first university.
However, like many biochemistry academics, it was not the first degree I attained at uni. I also hold Bachelor. Master and Doctorate degrees in chemistry and biological sciences as well as in biochemistry. I've also been a lecturer, reader and associate professor in chemistry in the UK and overseas and I've worked at a number of US "ivy-league" universities. I'm also a holder of that rare animal, a ScD. I won't bore you with membership of professional institutions and I don't wish to reveal too much about the research I do for my other employer.
Over the years, I've been interviewed on a number of subjects but all within the boundaries of my qualifications. The problem is that I've studied so much over the years, there's not a lot that's been left out and theTV producers know that. I do draw the line at anything to do with physics or related subjects, such as astronomy all the same.
Because of this, it's normally conventional to introduce me as "Professor x of x university" or "The government advisor, Professor x" rather than a professor of biochemistry.
I'm a biochemistry professor at one of the better known UK universities and a visiting professor at a couple of others including a medical school. I am also a member of what you might call senior management at the first university.
However, like many biochemistry academics, it was not the first degree I attained at uni. I also hold Bachelor. Master and Doctorate degrees in chemistry and biological sciences as well as in biochemistry. I've also been a lecturer, reader and associate professor in chemistry in the UK and overseas and I've worked at a number of US "ivy-league" universities. I'm also a holder of that rare animal, a ScD. I won't bore you with membership of professional institutions and I don't wish to reveal too much about the research I do for my other employer.
Over the years, I've been interviewed on a number of subjects but all within the boundaries of my qualifications. The problem is that I've studied so much over the years, there's not a lot that's been left out and theTV producers know that. I do draw the line at anything to do with physics or related subjects, such as astronomy all the same.
Because of this, it's normally conventional to introduce me as "Professor x of x university" or "The government advisor, Professor x" rather than a professor of biochemistry.
