Printed Page 397

Another ritual of modern print journalism—relying on outside sources—has made reporters heavily dependent on experts. To be sure, use of experts can lend credibility and balance to a news report as well as help reporters translate specialized knowledge into accessible language for readers and viewers. However, some journalists use quotes from experts merely to back up the focus or “angle” they want to present in their report. Others use them to create narrative conflict—pitting quotes from one expert against rebuttals from another.

To use experts, journalists must contact them directly—by phone or e-mail or in person. In selecting experts, they do not usually cite other reporters’ work, since that would reveal they did not get a story first or on their own. Yet some journalists have ended up presenting themselves as experts, in part to fill the news vacuum that arose in the late 1990s with the boom in 24/7 cable news programs. The vacuum began filling with talk shows and interviews with journalists willing to give their views on topics they wrote about. For example, during events in this decade that garnered intense media coverage, such as the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and recent presidential elections, many print journalists appeared regularly on cable programs acting as experts on the story. Sometimes they provided factual information, but often they offered opinion and speculation. This trend reflects a corporate need to use pundits—supposed experts who can cheaply feed the cavernous news hole with knowledge and opinions—and avoid the expense of sending reporters out to document key events and investigate significant issues. Pundits also promote their own media outlets when they routinely appear on TV talk shows.