Non-Authorities as Authorities

In "Within the Context of No Context," George Trow states: "Only an expert can deal with a problem. Only an expert or a pleasant man on television with access to experts. Only an expert or a man on television who knows how to welcome an expert or a problem or love for a problem. An expert or man on television or---in certain cases, an expert trained in the modes of action---a matron. In the age of no-authority, these are the authorities."

This comment from Trow makes me think about our love of talk shows, hosted by the likes of Dr. Phil, Oprah, Montel Williams, and Maury Povich, whose programs often feature various problems experienced by today's society. The guests are counciled, sometimes admonished, and questioned before millions of viewers. Yet for such personal insights into their lives, how much are these displays really worth to the audience, many of whom are seemingly addicted to these shows for the entertainment value? While we may actually learn something from their programs or feel some sense of superiority for not having the same hardships experienced by the guests, the displays, to me, seem to trivialize the suffering of those with the same afflictions, taking the programs down to the level of circus shows. I've always felt such matters should be kept personal and handled accordingly. I will allow that in some cases, the airing of a problem is beneficial to society, expecially if the problem is a rare one that needs to be made known to the populace to facilitate greater understanding. However, great care should be taken when choosing the expert to work with.

When you throw in the likes of Jerry Springer into the mix, the credibility of talk show hosts becomes even more questionable. With so many followers waiting for their hosts' next words and recommendations, should such loyalty be indicative of their (the hosts') expertise in any given matter? How did we become so reliant on talk shows to help us solve our problems?