Bilal Bashir Bhat
In recent years, television news channels have seen an alarming rise in the frequency of debates featuring so-called “experts” and analysts who appear ill-equipped for serious, constructive discussions.
Rather than offering informed perspectives or reasoned arguments, these individuals often provide shallow, inflammatory, or poorly researched opinions, transforming what should be thoughtful debates into spectacles of sensationalism. This practice is more than just a problem of quality; it is a menace to informed public discourse and democratic society as a whole.
Channels frequently invite individuals who lack the qualifications or depth of knowledge needed to address complex issues, simply because they are provocative or easily manipulated into saying controversial things. Their incendiary comments might spike viewership, but they also foster a toxic culture of misinformation and confusion among the public.
One of the primary dangers of this trend is the erosion of trust in the media. When viewers are repeatedly subjected to incoherent or misleading arguments by supposed “experts,” they begin to question the credibility of all information disseminated by the media.
Moreover, this practice undermines the credibility of actual subject matter experts. Most News channels blur the lines between genuine expertise and mere opinion to cater to sensationalism.
For example, during debates on economic policies, climate change, or international relations, an individual with no formal education or relevant experience is given the same platform as seasoned professionals. This “false equivalency” not only confuses viewers but devalues the work of legitimate experts, leaving the public unable to distinguish between valid insights and baseless commentary.
Another major issue is that these so-called experts often peddle personal biases or politically motivated agendas, which further polarize public opinion. Instead of fostering healthy, informed debate, the discussions devolve into shouting matches, with each side entrenched in their positions, unwilling to engage in meaningful dialogue.
In the process, the viewing public becomes divided, frustrated, and disengaged from serious conversations about policy, governance, and the future of society.
The impact of this trend goes beyond the studios of TV channels; it spills over into public discourse and affects the political culture of a nation. When people see incompetent individuals dominating airtime, spouting half-truths, or indulging in hyperbole, it sets a dangerous precedent. Public debate, both in the media and in society, becomes less about facts and reason and more about who can shout the loudest or present the most dramatic narrative.
To address this menace, news channels must take greater responsibility in selecting their panellists. The selection process should be based on qualifications, relevant experience, and the ability to engage in rational, respectful discourse.
Furthermore, channels must shift away from prioritizing sensationalism over substance. Producers and editors must recognize that while conflict and controversy might generate short-term ratings, they harm the long-term credibility of the channel and, more importantly, degrade public discourse.
Audiences too have a role to play. As viewers, it is essential to demand better from news channels. Instead of passively consuming whatever is presented, we should critically assess the credentials of the people we see on TV and hold media outlets accountable for promoting competence and expertise. Social media platforms offer a powerful tool for viewers to voice their concerns and push for change.
