Despite the Liberal Media’s Insistence, Americans Must Judge ‘Experts’ With Caution

By Gary Abernathy

This article was orginally published at The Empowerment Alliance and is re-published here with permission. 

Pronouncements from President Trump describing his actions are almost always countered by the far-left media with something along the lines of, “But experts say…,” followed by high-minded, eggheaded lecture from a so-called expert on the left ridiculing Trump for his failure to follow their established institutional pattern of thought.

Just a few examples of the media’s devotion to the “expertocracy.”

• “Experts on Russia say Donald Trump is wrong about the war in Ukraine” – Forbes.
• “We asked 50 legal experts about the Trump presidency” – New York Times.
• “Experts urge caution on Trump call for Hormuz deployment” – UPI.

Sometimes, the far-left media gets upset about the Trump administration’s cavalier attitude toward “experts.” Last August, NPR did a segment on “How a distrust of experts is shaping policy under Trump,” basically complaining that administration officials like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. feed into the growing lack of societal respect for experts.

The game played by the media actually has a name – it’s the “appeal to authority” tactic, a blatant effort to discredit or disparage a political idea by describing it as reckless, feckless or just plain academically or scientifically incorrect. The result of such an exercise is to downplay or discredit outside-the-box thought and political ingenuity by predicting failure in advance – predictions from the mouths of specialists who are awarded God-like authority by liberal news outlets.

Nowhere is the “appeal to authority” more aggressively employed than on the subject of climate change. Anyone who does not buy hook, line and sinker into the manmade climate change doctrine is greeted with the usual far-left media response – a recounting of the “scientific consensus” on climate change, a rehashing of miniscule temperature changes in the last 30 years, topped off by a roundup of the top 20 polluters among the fossil fuel corporations.

Of course, the media’s favorite trick is to make a bee line to its favorite “experts” on the far left of the political spectrum — most commonly including Ivy League professors and former Obama administration officials, those guaranteed to say the opposite of whatever Trump said, even before they are forced to hear what he said.

But despite a plethora of former officials from Democratic administrations in their hip pockets and a virtual lock on the world of academia, the left still finds it necessary to create out of whole cloth yet another set of “experts” for the purpose of influence.

Last August, after reading about it on a Fox News report, I wrote a column about the fact that “CBS News has of late been partnering with Climate Central, a nonprofit that bills itself as ‘policy-neutral’ and ‘independent,’ but acknowledges on its own website that it ‘uses science, big data, and technology to generate thousands of local storylines and compelling visuals that make climate change personal and show what can be done about it.’”

For instance, at the close of a CBS story on climate change, the credit read, “Story produced by Chris Spinder, in partnership with Climate Central. Editor: Chris Jolly.”

I also noted, “While its guidelines claim that its ‘partners’ make ‘most final editorial decisions,’ Climate Central adds that ‘we… insist upon scientific accuracy and context. If we can’t reach agreement on the science in a story, we agree in advance that we will halt the project.’ CBS News agreed to that?”

Hopefully, the new leadership at CBS News has discontinued such partnerships and has cast a wider net for those with expertise.

In that same column, I referenced a story by National Review on an “educational” program aiming to “make available to federal, state, and local judges the basic science they need to adjudicate the climate litigation over which they preside” and, of course, side more often with climate activists.

Earlier this month, National Review followed up by noting that the group – the Federal Judicial Center – is “a taxpayer-funded nonprofit created by Congress,” billing itself as “neutral.” And yet, “its most recent edition featured a politically-biased ‘climate science’ section that relied on research from radical left-leaning actors to persuade judges to rule in favor of progressive plaintiffs in climate change cases.”

The chapter on climate science brought howls of protests from numerous state attorneys general, who had urged the omission of the section. Instead, according to a source cited by NR, “an FJC representative suggested a quiet release of the fourth edition of the manual, specifically because of the climate science chapter.”

The moral of the story is that consumers need to constantly question, a, the gravitas afforded to “experts” as it relates to political initiatives, b, the criteria used by the media in the selection of it preferred experts and, c, the motives of the experts themselves. No one is completely void of bias, a completely neutral arbiter. No one.

It is important to recognize established facts, although fewer facts are firmly established than some would suggest. But disagreeing with the opinions of experts has led to countless great achievements, discoveries and revelations throughout history.

Experts predict outcomes based on past patterns. Leaders bend the future to their will.

Gary Abernathy is a longtime newspaper editor, reporter and columnist. He was a contributing columnist for the Washington Post from 2017-2023 and a frequent guest analyst across numerous media platforms. He is a contributing opinion columnist for The Empowerment Alliance, which advocates for realistic approaches to energy consumption and environmental conservation.

This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.