Warning signs have been popping up for quite some time. Information that might be helpful to automobile purchasers is changing fast. More important, so are the sources of that information.
A couple of years ago, a survey found that more than half of potential car-buyers wanted buying information not from experts, not from traditional journalists or analysts, but from people "just like themselves."
The new preference for amateur opinion is not limited to cars, of course. Social critics have been pointing out that young people, in particular, increasingly tend to mistrust "experts." How else can one explain the popularity of "consumer reviews" of hotels, books, movies, electronic equipment - even humdrum consumer goods. Non-professional "guy next door" viewpoints have been turning up on websites that cover just about any area in which readers might like to see opinions from previous users.
Few seem to care that the amateur "reviewer" is almost certainly biased - often blatantly one-sided - and probably has only limited, highly selective experience with the product or service being evaluated. Has he or she tried the competitive products or services? How about previous versions, or different varieties? Does the amateur appraiser know - or care - how the product or service in question came about, and how it fits into the overall picture? Has the reviewer given the product or service a thorough, carefully-planned trial that's designed to bring out the best - and also the worst?
As they might say across the Atlantic, "not bloody likely." All too often, as we pointed out in our last editorial ("Idiots Rule"), a snarky tone and venonomous verbiage substitute for objective, thoughtful observation and analysis. Typically, amateurs believe and proclaim that their voice is the sole true authority, and anyone who disagrees simply must be wrong. They're the ones who know better than anyone what should be praised or, more likely, scorned and skewered unmercifully.
Venality typically takes the place of veracity. Facts, rather than relied upon as the foundation for serious evaluation, may be strewn about helter-skelter like shunned toys on a Christmas-morning floor. Dribbling out onto the amateur reviewer's web page, all too often, are randomly blossoming opinions that masquerade as certainties, backed up by absolutely nothing beyond whim.
At a time when true expertise is needed more than ever before, simply because issues and events that affect all of us are harder to understand, we're tossing aside the wisdom that comes from an intense devotion to the details of one's chosen area of knowledge.
Those "customer reviews" are hard to resist, too, even by those of us who value experience and expertise, and should know better. They're almost addictive. How many travelers who need to pick out a hotel for their next trip have peeked at, rather than shunned, the "customer reviews" of lodging places at their destination? When buying from such outlets as Amazon, the temptation to glance through those amateur appraisals is overwhelming. We fall into the trap even when fully aware that most such evaluations are produced by people who know little about the subject, beyond their single, isolated encounter.
Before fans (and practitioners) of "citizen journalism" get overly agitated and defensive, we need to point out that a substantial number of amateur evaluations are written by people who do appear to have the requisite knowledge and background. Some opinion pieces crafted by amateurs stretch well beyond anything that a seasoned professional is likely to turn in, both in thoroughness and in thought.
Many amateurs turn out detailed essays, dissecting each detail of a product, service, or event. Plenty of commentaries by unpaid authors turn out to be impressively insightful, yielding fresh perspectives - though some stretch the boundaries, straddling the fine line between analysis and pretentiousness.
Our quarrel is with the bottom end of the amateur/professional scale. When "so-and-so sucks" passes for high wit in a critique, it's easy to dismiss the author as a fool whose comments merit no attention whatsoever. But even when the words sound super-professional, how do we know the facts presented are valid? How can we tell that this person really does know what he or she is talking about, and isn't simply well-versed in the use - or abuse - of intricate and arcane language.
We don't. We don't necessarily know much about the professional journalist or author, either. We're all aware, too, that the professionalism and objectivity of many a seasoned journalist can be sorely lacking. All those cases of plagiarism, distortion, excessively cozy relationships with sources - even outright conflicts of interest - have contributed to the low esteem in which the profession of journalism is held these days.
Much of the negativity is an extension of the lack of trust in each of our institutions: government, business, media, education, and more. Many of us take the simplistic response, insisting that "experts" are either owned and controlled by corporate interests, or they reflect elitist tastes that stand outside of what real people seek.
In short, pros aren't perfect by any means. Those who violate the ethics and principles of that occupation have, in effect, almost begged to be replaced by amateurs, who then are deemed more pure than any pro.
Purity, however, must be proven. At the same time, professionalism has to be demonstrated, not just promised.
Still, the professional who's been around for a while has a body of work that can be considered. If we've found a certain professional reviewer's perspectives satisfying in the past, we look for that person's opinions again. Most amateurs, on the other hand, have only a scattered selection of prior works that can be pondered. Maybe, none at all.
Differentiating between the two isn't so easy anymore. In the past, professional journalists earned all or most of their livings with words. Amateurs wrote for little or no pay. As more traditional journalists lose their jobs and outlets, though, judgments based on a writer's earnings become less relevant.
More important is the way they approach their work. In the automotive field, amateurs are more likely to deliver opinions based upon whether they personally like or dislike a vehicle, and whether they'd want to own one. True professionals know that nobody cares about their personal tastes. Nor should they. Instead, their reviews and evaluations emphasize how that vehicle compares with others in its class; and that can be done because he or she has driven them all, and taken note of the differences.
Regardless of any author's status, everything is an opinion, not hard-and-fast gospel. Yet, opinions are not all equal. To paraphrase George Orwell, some are a lot more equal than others. Paid, professional experts will dwindle, though - partly due to the sagging economy, but also because fewer readers trust them or have any interest in their comments. Is this really what we want for the future?