Round the clock live broadcasting drains the resources and budgets of television networks.

The cost of transmission and programming is extremely high and can only be borne by large institutions that enjoy substantial advertising revenue and receive support from states and wealthy backers for well-known purposes.

Airtime itself comes at a price, which stations pay to satellite owners, internet providers, social media platforms and more recently artificial intelligence services, in addition to routine operating costs, programming expenses and staff salaries.

Television and radio stations in poorer countries, Lebanon being a case in point, resort to filling their schedules with low-cost programming throughout the day. These shows typically feature a host and one or more guests chatting endlessly, repeating the same talking points from one program to another and moving from one channel to the next. The same faces may appear several times in a single day.

Stations also make a point of hosting controversial figures or guests who provoke controversy, often those with extreme and partisan views aligned with one side or another in an ongoing media and psychological war. That said, in fairness, there are still some programs and personalities that maintain a degree of professionalism, balance and sound, realistic understanding.

Information itself is no longer the priority. What matters now is opinion. Programs are built around viewpoints rather than facts. Audiences are no longer primarily interested in the information a guest provides, but in their presence, tone and how closely they reflect their own views or those of their sectarian or political group.

As a result, many individuals, though not all so as not to do an injustice to those with genuine competence, have become television stars and public figures whose names circulate widely, whether in praise, criticism, mockery or even hostility, despite their limited intellectual depth and weak analytical abilities.

One of the more curious aspects of this surge of television “stars” is the titles they give themselves or that stations assign to them to impress audiences captivated by grand sounding labels, despite their obvious exaggeration. For example:

• A “researcher in Iranian, Israeli, international or African affairs.” In reality, the title researcher is an academic designation earned through methodical research conducted according to internationally recognized standards. Serious research work typically begins at the graduate level and beyond. To be considered a researcher, an academic is expected to publish studies in peer reviewed journals. Yet on some screens, the label researcher is handed out freely by program hosts to any guest whose profile they wish to inflate and whose importance and credibility they seek to magnify.

• A “strategic researcher” is another widely used label, especially among retired military officers whose careers did not feature notable strategic achievements. Strategy is a vast field that concerns states and major institutions, not narrow local issues. Assigning the label “strategic” to someone offering political or non-political opinions is both conceptually and linguistically misplaced. A more accurate description would be “researcher” or “analyst in strategic affairs,” provided the person actually possesses solid research-based knowledge rather than simply following daily news and headlines.

• A “writer in a given field” is another example. A writer is someone who has made a profession of in-depth writing, develops ideas and perspectives on issues and leaves a meaningful impact through published works. A journalistic writer produces articles that become references in their field because of the depth of information and advanced analysis they contain. Not everyone who has written a news item or expressed an opinion qualifies as a writer. Yet the label “writer” appears frequently on screen beneath speakers who may never have produced anything of real value. Some of those given this title may in fact be little more than storytellers who cannot even write properly.
  

• The label “specialist” or “expert” is also widely misused. A true expert is someone who has studied a field in depth to the point of becoming a reference in it, possessing extensive and well-grounded knowledge. Such expertise should be supported by academic degrees, publications and research, not by the ability to recite bits of information hastily gathered from Google, Wikipedia or other search engines, nor from artificial intelligence tools that can now generate analysis and text on demand.

The list goes on, encompassing agitators, misinformers, opportunists, impostors, profiteers, entertainers and mouthpieces.

What if television networks accompanied every guest appearance with a documented biography outlining the speaker’s credentials, verified research contributions, whether strategic or otherwise, academic qualifications and areas of specialization?

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by the writers are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Annahar.