This is what it has become... My expert is perfect and yours is an idiot. Geesh!
Never-mind the specific wheres (yes plural), but I have observed that any "expert" is being vigorously questioned and ridiculed, depending on the audience belief. If the left presents an "expert", the right immediately piles on the ridicule and if the right presents an "expert", the left goes ballistic.
What is weird is some of these "experts" were in vogue for the opposite groups in just a few months past. How many times have you observed someone being completely ridiculed as being someone not worthy of listening to... and then a few months later being quoted as a reliable person?
The old "enemy of my enemy is my friend". In this case the "former enemy and no friend of mine that tells nothing but lies, is now an enemy of another of my enemies and is therefore now my friend and must be trusted in every utterance about another of my enemy, until such point that former enemy/ new friend says something negative about one of my friends that isn't true and therefore now has no credibility and tells lies about everything and anyone that believes those lies is an idiot".
I'm sure there is a simple phrase to describe this, but I am at a loss. In any case, the definition of "expert" is now called into question in a similar manner, all based on which network they appear.
Which begs the question... are the networks picking these experts based on the network's worldview and political philosophy?
The thing about experts is they tend to speak above my intellectual level and therefore the message becomes confusing when they differ ever so slightly or even completely. Particularly when each claim their ideas are based on science. I firmly believe that science is the "search for fact". So, it is entirely plausible that both are correct and I am misinterpreting the message.
The frustration is a matter for a later topic.
