Yes, journalists are under more pressure than ever to file early and often. But have reporters become too dependent on so-called academic ‘experts’ at the expense of seeking information first-hand?

More from Paul Boothe available More fromavailable here

Celebrating the holidays with family and friends, you may have missed the short recent blog by Ottawa Citizen reporter Glen McGregor. The essence of his piece was the argument that reporters need to shed lazy habits (some of which are facilitated by the ease of Internet research) and return to the traditional hard work of digging up news and talking to sources.

Hard to argue with that, you might think. At least one part of the blog, however, seemed to touch a nerve in academic quarters:

“No more quoting political scientists: It’s lazy and signals the reporter couldn’t find any other apparently neutral or objective source to talk. These people work in academics, not politics, so I’m not interested in their opinions on anything but their own research.”

This touched off an online flurry of debate among academics that were offended by the advice Mr. McGregor offered to his journalist colleagues. Andrew Potter, managing editor at the Ottawa Citizen, wrote an interesting assessment of the debate.

In my view, Mr. McGregor’s advice made a lot of sense — not only for journalists, but, indirectly, for academics as well. Let me begin by declaring that I believe his advice is just as relevant for economists as it is for political scientists.

Professors occupy a privileged position in our society. In essence, we are paid to teach and think and write on whatever we want. Ordinary citizens generally believe professors are broadly intelligent (only sometimes true), not self-interested (almost never true) and possess some special expertise in the things they choose to comment on publicly (not true often enough).

Recently, I returned to academic life after a number of years as a senior public servant. As a deputy minister, I consistently coached my junior staff to leave their personal views behind at the door and to stick to what they actually knew (and had evidence to support) when providing advice to ministers.

Unfortunately, not all professors feel similarly constrained. Sometimes I read academic economists’ comments in the media and wonder what they’d done to qualify as an expert on a particular issue. Often their curriculum vitae shows no evidence that they actually know what the journalist implies they know. Rather, they seem to be using simple undergraduate theory to give a shallow analysis in line with their own predilections.

Simple economic theory is, by necessity, an abstraction from reality. At its best, it’s intended to provide an initial framework to help us think about the causal connections between the actions of individuals, firms and governments. Simple theory is not intended to be applied to complex, real-world policy problems.

Further, professors’ personal views (as opposed to their specialized professional judgment) should be given no more prominence than those of non-academics. To do so does a disservice both to the public — which expects academics to actually know what they’re talking about — and to the academy, since it devalues the currency of genuine expertise.

I am not suggesting that professors refrain from talking to journalists, or vice-versa. I understand that academics are strongly encouraged by their institutions to be available for media interviews and journalists face increasingly tight deadlines to produce news stories. Rather, I am suggesting that both professors and journalists need to be more disciplined in their exchanges.

What does that discipline mean in practical terms? For academics, it means declining to comment on issues unless we can draw on real expertise — unless, for example, we have published research in the subject area, or have related work experience. It also means distinguishing between the predictions of abstract, simple theory and the nuanced complexity of the real world. For journalists, it means seeking out the genuine experts and being ready to explain to readers why one academic’s opinion is especially relevant.

Following Mr. McGregor’s advice probably would mean a bit more work for reporters. Academics would see their names in the news a little less often — but more often in association with the subjects they know well.

For everyone else, it would mean better-quality journalism and better-informed public discourse on the issues that matter.

Thank you, Glen McGregor, for some good advice.

Paul Boothe is Professor and Director of the Lawrence National Centre for Policy and Management at the Richard Ivey School of Business, Western University. His work experience includes university research and teaching, acting as an independent consultant to Canadian and international organizations, and serving as a senior public servant in provincial and federal governments. At the provincial level, he served as Saskatchewan’s Deputy Minister of Finance and Secretary to Treasury Board. At the federal level, his appointments include Associate Deputy Minister of Finance and G7 Deputy, Senior Associate Deputy Minster of Industry and, most recently, Deputy Minister of the Environment. He retired from the federal public service in July 2012.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.