The New Conservative

Covid

The Trouble With ‘Experts’

No matter what the topic is, there is now always an “expert”, and normally several as they do tend to pontificate in packs, to tell us “non-experts” what to think, and increasingly, if we let them, even what to do.

I don’t mean the “I’m a home decor expert and can tell you why grey is no longer the tasteful choice for kitchens” type of delusional ‘influencers’ who somehow seem to have a following, and manage to get their inane ramblings into the MSM. I mean the “experts” who have letters after their names and yet still desperately crave attention, deference and easy big money wages, dubious sponsorship, gongs, and titles. The letters after their names separate these “experts” from mere slebs, who unfortunately aren’t slow in coming forward with their support, endorsement or condemnation for ‘the latest thing’. Both “experts” and slebs increasingly now also segue between widely disparate ‘latest things’, but always with the same self-assured confidence and vitriolic put downs for any dissenters.

Why is this so? Was it always thus?

First, I have a guilty secret that I’m heartily ashamed of but feel TNC readers won’t all condemn me for (no, it’s not that!). Having abandoned MSM back in 2020, I still have a case of cold turkey and crave knowledge of what’s happening in normie/sheeple world, even though I have no idea who most of the people being talked about are, nor have any inclination to find out. My guilty secret is, although I feel dirty admitting it, I look at a certain well-known newspaper online. There, I’ve admitted it. It’s like using crack cocaine by proxy, namely all the ‘fun’ without actually paying the dealer. Cutting out the 50%+ lame sleb and royalty guff (probably the same thing now anyway) and the endless entirely predictable victim stories, it’s not surprising that much of the remainder ‘news’ is boringly one-sided, ill-researched, panic inducing nonsense. Much of this isn’t the product of old-fashioned investigative journalism, but lazily copied from social media and liberally splattered with extra “expert” opinion.

The best part of my guilty pleasure though isn’t reading the articles (the title is usually quite enough), but going straight to the comments, starting with the worst and best rated, thumbs down or thumbs up style.  Anything particularly contentious routinely doesn’t allow comments or any explanation of why (as if readers with a pulse can’t guess the reason).

It’s easy to see why we, as a country, are in the state we are – the deference shown to “experts” in the comments by those too lazy or too mentally challenged by anything except the onerous task of keeping up to date with the latest reality TV series, current health scares or tattoo styles is something to behold. These connoisseur-consumers of piffle liberally condemn other people and views they clearly cannot understand, preferring to parrot almost subliminally learned soundbites. They nevertheless clearly also seek validation through endorsement by “experts”, and by implication tenuous association with their much cleverer betters (Sir This, Professor That or indeed often just Stephen Fry – please note other slebs with media chasing views or books/films to promote are also freely available).

Was it always thus? Maybe it was, and the majority simply assumed that their betters knew more and were undoubtedly honourable people because of it. But there have always been exceptions; the people who condemned all doctors as quacks or who were fond of saying ‘if Johnny puts his hand in the fire, would you?’ were surely way ahead of their time and probably onto something?

This article was inspired by a Daily Mail article about statins and one of the comments, you can imagine the details so I won’t bother to re-tell them here. It could equally have been about the ‘climate emergency’, Ukraine, Gaza, Trump or Putin etc. The majority(?) would prefer everyone believe there is only the “expert” endorsed truth and the conspiracy theorists’ “misinformation”, and that they are of course with the “experts”.

Closer to my own recent experience, am I alone in wondering why there isn’t a national chain of (or perhaps even one anywhere?) dentists in the UK that operate a truly customer-focused service, without the protection racket-like need to first be ‘a patient’ and pay a wholly unjustifiable large first consultation, aka forced joining, fee?

Why oh why can’t dentists, opticians, chiropodists and their ilk operate a no appointment necessary drop in – but nevertheless still professional – service for adults who know what they want and are (reluctantly, or not, as the case may be) prepared to pay for it? Why is it easier to get a vanity Botox injection than a much-needed tooth filling? In the case of the NHS, I think we all know the answer, but surely a private business would prosper by catering to the expressed needs of clued-up customers? Well, of course this concept is far too radical and libertarian – how could a mere member of the public know what they need without an “expert” being handsomely paid to tell them?

For a happy, fulfilling life just ignore the “experts”, especially those who insist on reminding you that they are – in many cases, the title is ill-deserved.

 

Martin Rispin has had a career in many different sectors, most lately in the fields of English Tourism and Heritage based Urban Regeneration. He now lives, retired, in Kingston upon Hull.

 

If you enjoy The New Conservative and would like to support our work, please consider buying us a coffee – it would really help to keep us going. Thank you!

Please follow and like us:

5 thoughts on “The Trouble With ‘Experts’”

  1. One glance at the BBC news website will almost always produce an “Experts predict…” headling.

    Guardian as well. No surprise there.

    We abandoned the MSM way before Covid. At most a look at the front page of newspapers online, or the BBC news site. We junked our TV 20 years back – enough of funding the Propaganda Arm of the Liberal Elite. Whilst we, thanks to VPN, can watch the iPlayer anonymously, why would we? It’s full of shit.

    Radio – R3 despite their general dumbing down, and R5 for the sport.

  2. It is ridiculous to suggest that walk-in services should be provided. These businesses could not operate on the basis that people can just turn up. Do you expect them to have staff waiting around and expensive equipment not being used and just hoping that somebody will turn up. What is the problem with the sensible option of making an appointment that suits both parties? Dentists do make provision for emergencies.

    1. What a strange response.
      Apparently Solicitors manage to operate without knowing if any clients might just drop in (and don’t insist that a first appointment costs £100+ to assess the client’s overall legal situation, rather than doing what the client ask for). Likewise vets, garages, petrol stations, food shops etc. don’t have a problem with reliance on drop in trade or insist on users first paying to join their club. I assume you are a dentist yourself, but one who hasn’t realised that there are now more people out there needing work than can get it under the current failed NHS system or via the protectionist/cosmetic dentistry private sector charletons. Emergency provision is inadequate and largely exists because of the failure of mainstream dentistry provision models.

      1. Exactly. Well said.

        The ancillary medical professions, most of whom are not NHS-tied, frequently abuse their quasi-monopolistic positions. Many former such dental, optical, etc., practices, are, as is also true of many vets, now owned by remote hard-nosed commercial companies who push their inflexible standardised treatments at high prices.

        That apart, the revised NHS dental payment scheme devised by Gordon Brown in 2006-07 has only made the situation far worse.

  3. Pingback: Greek Style – Part Two - The New Conservative

Leave a Reply