Experts become "bricks"!Experts in news reports suggest why they turn around?

Author: Zhang Yuanyuan

Source: Yangcun Communication

In recent years, we can often see the topic of "expert suggestions ×××" on social media. Most of these topics are published by the media through interviews or organizing experts. Some are recognized, but some have caused netizens to vomit.

This year, there are even entries that "suggest experts do not recommend" to the hot search high. Why does the "expert suggestion" in the media report frequently flipped?

1. "Expert" becomes a "brick home": the public’s crisis of trust in experts

Experts often enjoy a high reputation as a knowledge elite. However, in fact, "the experts who have the right to master science and technology or knowledge are likely to be the most ethical group of ethics."

In recent years, experts have often been discussed by netizens: "It is recommended that experts don't recommend it", "It is recommended that experts recommend useful" "Suggesting bricks to shut up" ... It can be seen that the public's trust in experts only maintains one comparison in one comparison. Low level.

Behind a large -scale Internet discussion is the public's serious crisis of trust in experts, indicating that the intellectual elite represented by experts is facing the "expert Taxi trap".

Looking back at the status quo, it can be found that the degree of credibility of experts can be reduced.

From the perspective of experts, some "pseudo -experts" deceived the public with false charges and cooperated with advertising companies to carry out false propaganda; some experts were accused of academic inconsistency or even fraud, such as professors in Nanjing's university through academic fakes. The moral quality and its credibility have doubts.

From the perspective of the media, because some media have discussed the context and context of the proposal because some media have won the context and context of the proposal, they even distort and exaggerate it, which not only leads the public’s misunderstanding and vomiting of specific experts, but also prompts the public to the whole The trust of expert groups decreases. As a result, "experts" gradually became synonymous with unreliable, and then faded down the halo of the past and put on the stigma of the "brick family".

At the same time, expert discourse expression and the public discourse system have also produced certain contradictions and conflicts. On the one hand, the expression of experts shows the high attitude of intellectual elites to a certain extent, and the "attitude" of experts is an important factor that affects the public's trust in it.

Due to the asymmetry of various policies, science and technology, etc., the public often resorts to common sense, emotional experience and value rationality on such issues, but some experts are degraded into irrational performance. In fact, studies have shown that the public has its own knowledge and experience. Although the public does not have the professional knowledge and literacy of experts, this does not be a reason to deny its participation in scientific discussion and other activities.

On the other hand, some experts failed to come to the masses from the masses, so it is difficult to persuade a certain matter by virtue of the statement close to the public. The distance between the public has caused the public to have an alienated and indifferent attitude.

At present, although studies have confirmed that during the new crown pneumonia's epidemic, the public's trust in medical and health experts such as Zhong Nanshan and Li Lanjuan has increased significantly, but the public trust in the general sense of the general sense is still at a lower level. However, facing major public health issues such as global epidemics, large -scale policy reform is imperative. Therefore, the voice of experts is necessary and important for the discussion of related policies with the authority and scientific nature of their knowledge. Therefore, related research should in -depth influencing factors of the persuasiveness of experts as policy advocates, so as to rebuild the public's trust in experts, and then enhance the public's support for related policies.

Below will focus on the research on the credibility and persuasiveness of the exploration of experts in the advocacy of public health policy. Is this study "people really" listen to experts "? Assuming that expert credibility and persuasive warnings that have an impact on public health policy "are titled, and Nathaniel Geiger published in" Health Communication ".

2. Expert VS ordinary people: Experts' credibility and persuasiveness If you want to explore the credibility and persuasive related factors that affect experts in public health policy advocacy, first clarify which factor will affect the individual's relevant information about policy advocacy for policy advocacy Reaction.

The first is the information framework. That is, the information with persuasion tendencies enhances its effectiveness by focusing on the specific aspects of the theme that the communicator wants to emphasize. If the communicator wants to emphasize the impact of climate change on public hygiene, it will point out that climate change is leading to an increase in the incidence of asthma. Therefore, this problem can be solved by reducing air pollution. s concern.

The second is the source of information. The study of the academic community has two emphasis on the study of the concept of information: first, professionalism, reflects the perception of whether there is sufficient and subjective knowledge about the source of the information; Goodwill. Earlier studies have shown that information with experts as information sources is usually considered higher professional. However, more new studies believe that the source of expert information is not always considered to be more trustworthy than non -expert information sources.

The third is individual value judgment. The solution of public health issues may be considered the cause of new problems. Therefore, when individuals decide whether to support these policies, they often comprehensively consider the derivative issues brought by policies and policies, and support matters that they think are prioritized. This process is not only driven by professional scientific facts, but also driven by personal value judgment. Therefore, people may not obey the suggestions of experts, but rely on their own value judgments, and those who think they are worthy of trust and sharing their own values. Studies have shown that individual experts may not be more convincing than ordinary people in advocating climate change policies. The fourth is the nature of related issues. Compared with the topic of climate change, the political attributes of the new crown pneumonia epidemic issue are relatively low, which makes the public more likely to obey the advice of experts.

Fifth, individual political tendencies. Studies have shown that in terms of political issues, personal political tendencies are the key influencing factor of how they evaluate the source of information. Studies have shown that in some Western countries, political conservatives do not believe in scientists than political liberals, and when scientists provide information about challenging their worldview, this dislike may intensify.

Research data shows that in terms of the credibility of the source of information, although the interviewee believes that the information under the source of experts is higher than the information under non -expert source, they think that non -experts and experts are equally credible. And this view is demonstrated in different types of problems. In terms of policy support, experts and non -experts advocate the persuasiveness of information.

3. Crack the "brick home" difficulties: enhance the public's trust in experts

The public's trust in experts directly affects the public's evaluation and decision -making and decision -making on related risk governance such as climate change. Studies have shown that the higher the public's trust in experts, the more willing to cooperate with relevant policies, and the lower the public trust of the experts, the more unwilling to cooperate with relevant policies.

Therefore, the reduction of the trust of experts' trust will bring some difficulty to the implementation of relevant policies. At present, the world is facing serious public health threats. Therefore, it is necessary to explore the way to strengthen the public's trust in experts, so as to deepen the public's understanding of relevant policies and increase support, thereby promoting the implementation of relevant policies.

First of all, experts should improve personal literacy, and obtain public trust with the attitude of affection, dedication, and professional knowledge. First, experts from all walks of life should come from the masses to the masses, and help the masses understand national policies from the perspective of the masses. Second, experts should play a role of personal representation and truly do practical things for the public. Studies have shown that during the fight against the new crown pneumonia, the public's trust in the medical and health fields of Zhong Nanshan and Li Lanjuan has increased significantly. Third, experts should actively eliminate the interests of the government and individual institutions to maintain the independence of themselves and their professional knowledge.

Secondly, the media should strengthen internal supervision and improve the entry threshold of journalists in professional fields. "Contemporary mass media has actually served as the main medium of social trust," but as mentioned earlier, the media's hype and other behaviors have largely destroyed the trust relationship between experts and the public. Therefore, the media should be to standardize online reports, strengthen "control", and establish professional departments or teams to popularize relevant knowledge, strengthen reports in public health in public health such as climate change and new crown pneumonia. The reporter's entry threshold and systematic training for related professional knowledge, try to avoid the unintentional distorted facts of "layman reporting internal".

Finally, the government should expand the channels for scientific discussions and policy discussions. For a long time, the rights of scientific proposal have been given experts with professional knowledge, and the public speech is weak, which has led the public's judgment and experience knowledge to be marginalized. Therefore, the government should broaden the channels for public participation in discussion, and increase the opportunities for direct communication between public and related fields. The "Citizen Lecture Hall" is opened online and offline, so that the professional knowledge is deeply rooted in the public, but also given public suggestions, exchanges and questioning. right.

This article is authorized to reprint from the WeChat public account "Yangcun Communication". The original title "Suggestion experts do not suggest": Experts' credibility and persuasive research 丨 thesis selection of the experts as policy advocates "are abolished compared to the original text.

Edit | Zhu Tingting

Reference link

Burrows, R., Nettleton, S., Pleace, N., Loader, B., & Muncer, S. (2000). Virtual community care? Social policy and the emergence of computer mediated social support.Information, Communication & Society, 3 (1), 95–121.

Cummings, L. (2014). The "Trust" heuristic: arguments from authority in public health.health communication, 29 (10), 1043–1056.

Epstein S. (1996) .impure science: AIDS, Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge. Berkeley: University of Cal-iFornia Press. Fiske, S. T., & Dupree, C. (2014). Gaining trust as well as respect in communicating to motivated audiences about science topics.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,111(Suppl. 4), 13593–13597.

Gauchaat, G. (2012). Policization of science in the public sphere: a Study of public trust in the united states, 1974 to 2010.American Sociology Review, 77 (2), 167–187.

Geiger, N., & Swim, J. K. (2021). A balance theory perspective into lay perceptions of the three pillars of sustainability. In F. Weber, L. Krainer, & M. Karmasin (Eds.),The sustainability communication reader: A reflective compendium. Springer.

Geiger, N., SWIM, J. K., Fraser, J., & Flinner, K. (2017). Catalyzing Public Engagement with Climate CHROUGH Informal Science Learning Center Communication, 39393 (2939393939393 (293939393 (2939393 (2939393), 3.9

Kennedy, B. (2020) .u.s. Concern About Climate CHANGE is Rising, But Mainly AMONG DEMOCRATS. Pew Research Center. Https: //www.pewresearch. -ClImate-Change-IS-RISINGBUT-Mainly-AMONG-DEMOCRATS/

Lash s, szerszynski b, wynne B. (1996). Risk, Environment and Modernity: TOWARDS a New Ecology. London · Thousand Oaks · New Delhi: Sage Publications.

Levin, K., Cashore, B., Bernstein, S., & AULD, G. (2012). Overcoming the Tragedy of Super Wicked Privems: Constraining Our Future Selves to Amelobal CLIMATE.POLICACE.POLICYRICACE.POLICYRICYRACE. 123–152.

Maibach, E. W., Nisbet, M., BALDWIN, P., Akerlof, K., G. (2010). Reframing Climate CHANGE AS A PUBLIC Health is: An exploration design 1), 299.

McGinnies, E., & Ward, C. D. (1980). Better liked than right: Trustworthiness and expertise as factors in credibility.Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin,6(3), 467–472.Myers, T. A., Nisbet, M. C., Maibach , E. W., & Leiserowitz, a. A. (2012). A public health frame arouses holdful emotions about climate change.clImatic change, 113 (3–4), 1105–1112.

Nisbet, E. C., Cooper, K. E., & Garrett, R. K. (2015). The partisan Brain: How dissonant science messages lead conservatives and liberals to (Dis)trust science.The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,658(1 ), 36–66.

Oppenheimer, m. (2011). What Roles Can Scientist Play in Public Discourse? EOS, Transactions American Geophysical Union, 92 (16), 133–134.

Polling, P. (2020, March 26).Worries About Coronavirus Surge, as Most Americans Expect a Recession – Or Worse. Pew Research Center - U.S. Politics & Policy. https://www.people-press.org/2020/03 /26/Worries-About-Coronavirus-Surge-As-Most-Americans-EXPECT-A-Recess-OR-WORSE/

Popay, J. (2018). What will it take to get the evidence value of layerDge recography? Internal journal of public health, 63 (9), 1013–1014.

Slovic · p. (2000) .the Perception of Risk. London: EarthScan.

Sparkman, G., & Attari, S. Z. (2020). Credibility, communication, and climate change: How lifestyle inconsistency and do-gooder derogation impact decarbonization advocacy.Energy Research & Social Science,59, 101290.

Walton, d. (2010) .appal to exceable: arguments from authority. Penn State Press.

Weathers, m. R., & Kendall, B. E. (2016). Developments in the frame of climate Change as a Public Health Issue in us newSpapers.environmental Communication, 10 (5), 593–611.

Chen Qiangqiang. (2018). The introduction of the public participation in science interaction expertise. Research on natural dialectics (05), 54-60. Chen Qiangqiang. (2019). Expert study: public participation in the reconstruction of the relationship between the relationship between the relationship and trust. Science research. (12), 2123-2129.

Fan Hao. (2015). At present, the "problem trajectory" of China's ethics and their spiritual forms.

Fei Xiaotong. (2013). Local China. Beijing: Chinese Book Bureau.

Guo Yan & Zhang Xueyi. (2017). "Expert Trust" and its reconstruction strategy: an empirical research. Natural dialectical communication (04), 82-92.

Hu Dongqing & Gu Qinxuan. (2022). Team power distance and collectivism on team creativity: Based on a shared leadership perspective. Management review (05), 167-175.

Sheng Xiaoming & Guo Yan. (2016). Reshape the trust of experts to prevent populism.

Song Wei & Sun Zhuangzhen. (2014). Policy optimization of scientific and technological risk regulations-communication, exchanges and cooperation between multi-party interests. China Science and Technology Forum (03), 42-47.

Wang Juan. (2016). The public's trust in the public in the governance of climate change.

Yang Qifei. (2020). In the late modern society, expert trust crisis and reshaping. Young reporters (15), 41-42.

Zhang Xueyi & Guo Yan. (2022). Expert trust and revelation in the new crown pneumonia.

- END -