Is "many experts" an unhelpful and potentially misleading term?
Executive summary
“Many experts” is a phrase that frequently appears in media and commentary but can obscure disagreement, sample size and expertise — critics note experts often err (Irish Times example) and panels can be small or unrepresentative (Vajiram & Ravi citing advisory-pool concerns) [1] [2]. Reporting that leans on anonymous or aggregated “many experts” prompts scrutiny because available pieces show experts both praising and criticizing the same policies, demonstrating genuine divergence rather than consensus [3] [4].
1. “Many experts” flattens disagreement into false unanimity
Using “many experts” implies broad consensus even when sources show clear division. For example, the FDA’s new “plausible mechanism pathway” drew both praise and criticism from named specialists — Holly Fernandez Lynch praised aspects while Raffaele Giusti voiced caution — demonstrating substantive expert disagreement rather than a single stance [3]. Similarly, commentary collecting experts’ predictions about 2025 shows conflicting forecasts and multiple misses; critics point out prediction failures as evidence experts can be wrong en masse [1]. Saying “many experts” hides these cleavages [3] [1].
2. Small or narrow expert pools skew the phrase’s meaning
The phrase often rests on limited panels or repeatable citation networks. A 2022 paper cited by an editorial analysis argues indices and reports can rely on small pools of Western experts, embedding subjective or ideological biases — a structural problem that makes “many experts” a misleading shorthand when the underlying sample is tiny or homogenous [2]. When outlets or policy memos draw from such constrained pools, the “many” in “many experts” is numerically and demographically suspect [2].
3. “Many experts” can be weaponized by storytellers and partisans
Newsrooms, think tanks and political actors all benefit from claiming expert backing. Project-based politics shows how “experts” and policy blueprints can be marshalled to lend authority to sweeping agendas; critics of Project 2025 describe its advocates as presenting comprehensive plans that reassure supporters while provoking grave concerns among legal and civil-rights experts — two opposing expert narratives using the same rhetorically authoritative framing [5] [6]. The phrase helps craft legitimacy without revealing contested judgments [5] [6].
4. Accountability: name the experts, show the evidence
Good reporting names who the experts are, their fields, and the evidence behind their claims. The Bioxconomy coverage of FDA reform does this: it quotes named specialists and cites the NEJM pathway that triggered debate, permitting readers to weigh positions [3]. Conversely, pieces that default to “many experts” without attribution omit key context about methodology, conflicts of interest and expertise [3].
5. Alternatives journalists should use to keep readers informed
Reporters should replace “many experts” with precise language: quantify (“X of Y specialists”), specify fields (“geneticists,” “economic historians”), name sources, or outline the range of views. The ECFR and Brookings pieces model richer framing by mapping multiple trends and critiques rather than asserting consensus, showing how expert opinion can be varied and conditional [4] [5]. Precise attribution avoids implying unanimity where none exists [4] [5].
6. Limitations in the available reporting
Available sources document examples of both expert disagreement and the problems of small expert pools [3] [1] [2]. They do not provide a systematic, empirical study quantifying how often “many experts” misleads across media, nor do they present a comprehensive audit of newsroom usage of the phrase; those data are not found in current reporting (not found in current reporting).
7. Practical takeaway for readers and editors
Treat “many experts” as a prompt to demand specifics: who, how many, in what discipline, and what evidence. Examples in the reporting show named experts reach different conclusions on high‑stakes issues (FDA policy, geopolitical forecasts, Project 2025), so accept such claims only when accompanied by attribution and explanation [3] [4] [6]. When outlets fail to do that, readers should assume the phrase may be functioning as rhetorical shorthand rather than a sign of settled truth [2] [1].