Introduction
Does media attention make people experts or just more visible? The two are not remotely the same thing, yet in almost every profession they have become increasingly difficult to separate. A colleague of mine has a wonderfully description for what happens in our corner of the professional world. He calls it “the Mafia” – not because envelopes stuffed with cash are changing hands that we know of, nor are bulky rolled carpets being quietly dropped off into the nearest concrete pour, but because the same small group always seems to emerge whenever a journalist needs a quote or there is a cheque being written. They are the familiar faces, the regular commentators, and the people whose opinions somehow become “accepted wisdom” through sheer repetition.
Spend long enough in any industry and you start recognising the pattern: there is an inner circle whose members are quoted endlessly, invited onto panels, interviewed for articles, the recipients of funding and treated as though they are the unquestioned authorities. The curious thing is that, if you actually work in the profession, you often discover that many of the people regarded as its public intellectuals are not necessarily those held in the highest esteem by their peers.
The relationship between public reputation and professional reputation can be surprisingly weak – another reminder for me landed this week after reading a statement responding to what had been presented as a significant point of law due to come into effect next year. It arrived with the theatrical flourish one normally reserves for constitutional crises; there was certainty, urgency and language designed to suggest that they had all the solutions… Spoiler: they don’t !
Having read amd discussed the underlying legal position, I found myself wondering whether we had all just witnessed the legal equivalent of a fireworks display in broad daylight. There was plenty of noise, considerable enthusiasm, but precious little that anyone could actually see and that was of much benefit for those who will be affected. Shakespeare would probably have smiled – Much Ado About Nothing remains one of the most enduring titles in English literature precisely because it captures a timeless human habit: we are remarkably good at mistaking statements for importance. Later, in Macbeth, he gave us another phrase that has survived four centuries because it remains painfully recognisable: “sound and fury, signifying nothing.” Some professions appear to have turned it into a communications strategy.
Every Profession Creates Its Own Establishment
There is an uncomfortable truth that rarely receives much discussion, and it is that every profession eventually develops its own aristocracy. Rarely the most knowledgeable people, not always the most accomplished practitioners, and certainly not always the deepest thinkers or those who just want to do good rather than have meetings to discuss issues. Instead, it develops a class of recognisable names who become the profession’s public face simply because they were there first, speak confidently enough, and are willing to comment on absolutely everything. Before long, journalists know their mobile numbers by heart; need a quote within twenty minutes, ring the usual suspects; Harry is always at his desk and available !
The cycle then feeds itself: journalists quote the same individuals because they are familiar and easy to get hold of’ readers assume they are quoted because they are authoritative. Organisations invite them to speak because the public recognises them. recognition becomes reputation, reputation becomes authority, and authority, in time, becomes almost impossible to question without appearing heretical. And because people have heard of them, they donate or fund – the circle is complete.
It is rather like those restaurants with queues stretching around the block. Eventually nobody remembers whether the food is exceptional or whether everyone is simply joining the queue because everyone else has already done so.
The Media Does Not Reward Expertise. It Rewards Availability.
This is not intended as criticism of journalists; most are working under extraordinary pressure, often producing balanced articles against impossibly tight deadlines. If you need an informed comment within an hour, you do not have the luxury of compiling a shortlist of every specialist in the country before making a considered choice. You ring the person who answers and they can answer because, just maybe they are not engrossed elsewhere? If they answer quickly, speak confidently, and deliver a clean quote that fits neatly into eight lines of copy, they become invaluable. Repeat that process often enough and a media expert is born and they become ensconsed like a peer in the house of Lords.
None of those qualities necessarily tells us anything about the accuracy of what they are saying. They merely indicate that they are exceptionally good at being quoted. There is a subtle difference, and it is also an important one.
Confidence Has Become Our Substitute for Evidence
Human beings have always been oddly susceptible to certainty. Someone who speaks with complete confidence somehow appears more persuasive than someone who carefully explains complexity, even when the latter knows considerably more. The Law is an excellent example – ask any experienced lawyer whether legal questions are usually straightforward and the answer will almost certainly begin with two words: “It depends.” That is not indecision. That is expertise.
The experienced professional immediately starts thinking about exceptions, competing authorities, factual distinctions, procedural nuances, and unintended consequences. Meanwhile, someone else is already halfway through explaining to a television presenter why the judgment changes absolutely everything. Guess which interview survives the edit.
Reading the Judgment Is Becoming Optional
One increasingly suspects that reading judgments has become something of an unfashionable hobby. Why spend an afternoon working through careful legal reasoning when someone has already summarised it in two hundred emotionally satisfying words on social media? The difficulty, of course, is that legal judgments have an irritating tendency to contain law. Context, reasoning and qualifications matter. Judges have an unfortunate habit of explaining precisely what they mean instead of providing catchy headlines. So why not go to a social media monetiser who will explain everything while dancing for the camera? The resulting gap between the judgment itself and the public commentary surrounding it can occasionally become rather spectacular. One reads the original decision expecting to discover a legal revolution, only to find careful clarification of a relatively narrow issue. It is a little like attending a cinema after reading breathless reviews describing the greatest action film ever made, only to discover ninety minutes devoted almost entirely to planning permission.
The Professional Echo Chamber
The real danger is not that one person occasionally overstates a point – everyone gets things wrong. The greater problem is that the same small group often repeats and reinforces one another’s interpretations until they begin to acquire an air of inevitability. Agreement becomes confused with correctness; if five familiar names all make the same claim, many readers understandably conclude that the issue must be settled. It would hardly be due to the fact that those five people know one another rather well and have time to meet the journalist at The Ivy on the way home.
Professions have always contained networks and that’s perfectly normal. What becomes unhealthy is when networks gradually evolve into gatekeepers, deciding not only which opinions receive attention but whose voices are considered worth hearing in the first place. Fresh perspectives rarely struggle because they lack merit. They struggle because nobody has saved their telephone number.
Social Media Has Turned Volume Into Currency
If traditional media rewarded availability, social media has added another ingredient: volume; algorithms adore certainty, especially if it’s shocking. Nuance performs rather less impressively,, for example
“The judgment raises several interesting questions requiring careful analysis.” get 2 likes.
“OMG – This changes EVERYTHING.” said the monetiser in a barely there bikini guarantees 15k shares before lunch.
The platforms are not designed to identify expertise. but to identify engagement; unfortunately, those are entirely different objectives which means that toxicity travels, precision is boring and is left on the sidewalk.
Quiet Expertise Is Almost Invisible
Some of the finest professionals I have met share one frustrating characteristic: they are almost impossible to persuade into public debate and also tend to be far more conservative about engaging. They are also busy people: they are reading, researching, advising clients, preparing cases, and doing the actual work that created their expertise in the first place. Many positively recoil from making sweeping public pronouncements because they understand just how dangerous absolute certainty can be. Ironically, the more someone knows, the less likely they are to describe complicated issues as obvious.
That caution is often mistaken for weakness and not exciting enoughl IMO, it should be recognised as intellectual honesty.
The Performance Was Better Than the Substance
Watching the recent commentary unfold reminded me less of analysis than theatrical performance – a complex legal situation turned into an organisation’s “statement”. The delivery was polished, the confidence was unwavering, and the language positively crackled with significance. The content, however, appeared to have wandered off somewhere – I could almost hear Shakespeare quietly muttering from the wings that he had written this scene already and that it was proving unexpectedly durable.
Some performances deserve standing ovations; others deserve to be booed…
The Question We Should Start Asking
Perhaps we should become slightly more sceptical whenever someone is described as the leading expert and ask questions such as:
Leading according to whom? Media appearances, follower count, conference invitations, or demonstrated understanding?
Those are very different measures, because being well known is an achievement. being knowledgeable is another – the two occasionally coincide, but they should never be assumed,,,
Conclusion
My colleague’s description of “the Mafia” has stayed with me because it captures something that many professions quietly recognise but rarely admit. Not a conspiracy, not corruption, but something altogether more ordinary and therefore more powerful: habit. The same voices become familiar, familiarity becomes authority, authority becomes accepted truth. Eventually, nobody remembers why those particular people became the default experts in the first place – mainly because they answered the phone and have a generous expenses account?
The distinction matters, especially in law, where confidence is no substitute for evidence, repetition is no substitute for reasoning, and press coverage is no substitute for actually reading the judgment. The loudest voice in the room will always attract attention, schools teach us to listen to figures of authority. Our worklife history suggests it is worth checking whether the quiet person in the corner has already spotted everything the loud one missed.
FAQs
Does being quoted frequently by the media make someone an expert?
No. Media exposure reflects visibility, availability, and communication skills. Expertise depends on knowledge, experience, and the quality of the underlying analysis.
Why do journalists often use the same commentators?
Time pressures mean journalists often rely on their contacts who respond quickly and provide quotations – often stating the obvious and not having thought too deeply. That process naturally favours familiar voices.
Why is legal commentary sometimes exaggerated?
Complex legal decisions rarely produce compelling headlines. Simplifying or overstating their significance can make them easier to report, but risks losing important legal context.
How should readers assess legal commentary?
Where possible, compare commentary with the judgment itself, consider whether alternative expert views exist, and be cautious of absolute claims unsupported by detailed reasoning.
