"Experts most likely to point out obvious generalities and utter banal platitudes," experts say.

Who the hell are these experts, and how can we get rid of them?

Our local rag - aka "newspaper" - always uses "Experts say" when introducing an AP wire story.

Needless to say, the local rag doesn't even make good puppy training paper.

But the NYTimes Sunday edition had that going for it...expert dogs said...

Hey, I'll tell you what- You need an expert opinion? I got 'em for you. I am setting up shop as an officially sanctioned high ranking expert opinionator. If you need an expert opinion on anything from astro physics, to '62 Fords I can hook you up.

for a fee, that is...

JWM

Hahahahaha.

The only thing better than an expert in the news is a team of experts working on the Discovery Channel. I especially admire the UFO team with the aviator shades and UFO baseball hat, and the ghost hunting team with all the electronic gear and the ESP medium with the shakey voice.

They are so cool, totally believable, definitely experts.

I used to teach a research paper class to freshman at a local community college.

After guiding them through some fundamental logic and argumentation, I then moved on to evidence (gathering and disputing thereof). I taught them to consider anonymous and non-quantitative citing of "expert" opinion to be next to worthless in terms of making an argument, and always a point of attack in disputing one.

Until the experts are named, and their credibility and potential conflicts of interest assessed, and until their opinions can be measured against others in their field (do they represent 5% of those in their field? 50%? 90%), don't bother giving the citation credence.

I used to teach a research paper class to freshman at a local community college.

After guiding them through some fundamental logic and argumentation, I then moved on to evidence (gathering and disputing thereof). I taught them to consider anonymous and non-quantitative citing of "expert" opinion to be next to worthless in terms of making an argument, and always a point of attack in disputing one.

Until the experts are named, and their credibility and potential conflicts of interest assessed, and until their opinions can be measured against others in their field (do they represent 5% of those in their field? 50%? 90%), don't bother giving the citation credence.

It was a day or two after 9/11 and some Ivy League suit came on TV with the crawl describing him as an "Expert on Middle East Terror," and I thought to myself no, the REAL experts on Middle East Terror just brought down four jetliners.

That professorial dude at the top looks like a distinguished Keith Olbermann. Which is a contradiction in terms.