One of the most difficult challenges people around the world have faced in understanding Israel’s war against the October 7 Palestinian attackers and their team of Iranian proxies has been filtering all the false information spread on mainstream and social media from the facts.
The number of pundits and amateur analysts offering their own narratives added to the confusion. What qualifications should we look for when looking for commentary on current events?
In an episode of his podcast during the war, Joe Rogan hosted two well-known individuals, comedian Dave Smith and journalist Douglas Murray, who have become popular for speaking about Israel’s war. One of the points Murray made is the importance of gaining firsthand expertise in an area before commenting on it.
Smith rejected Murray’s claim that firsthand expertise is essential to comment on the war. He argued that Murray shouldn’t act as a gatekeeper and that reading reports from the war is sufficient to qualify a person to comment on it.
Their debate reached a crescendo when Murray was incredulous when Smith admitted that he had never been to Israel and didn’t think traveling to the region to see it for yourself was necessary to understand the war.
I recently lectured on a topic that I had spent months researching in order to reach my conclusions. After presenting my theory, two participants strenuously objected. I reviewed the method I had employed and the facts that supported my conclusions and asked them how they had reached theirs.
I was disappointed when they admitted, with no hesitancy, that this was just how they felt, without any facts to support their opinion.
In a similar incident, I reached a conclusion based on research I had conducted on a specific meeting between two world leaders. As part of my research before presenting this theory in my lectures, I spoke to a high-ranking government official who was in the room for the meeting.
The official explained that my conclusion was incorrect based on events in the meeting that had not been reported publicly.
Both cases feature people with expertise either from extensive research or firsthand knowledge. Non-experts have every right to express their opinions. But those seeking to understand history and current events should value the opinions of experts over laymen.
They should look to three types of people to gain their information. First are experts. These are people who have spent years studying a topic by reading, studying other experts, and teaching subject material. Degrees don’t establish expertise, but they are a marker of time spent studying the subject.
Second are insightful people. These are naturally intelligent individuals whose high level of intelligence has led them to expertise in various areas and who can apply their insightful and methodological thinking to these areas.
Lastly, there are people with firsthand experience of the events. People who have personally experienced the area they’re talking about have expertise that is impossible to gain in any other way. Soldiers in battle, politicians, and doctors treating illness are some of the examples of expertise born of firsthand experience.
This doesn’t mean experts, insightful people, or experienced people are always correct, but they are more qualified than people who haven’t studied extensively, aren’t particularly insightful, or lack firsthand experience to speak about events.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and if they choose, to express it. Those searching for worthwhile analysis or just factual information will prefer avoiding people who don’t have quality knowledge to share with others. There are three types of people to avoid when looking for beneficial insights.
The first type to avoid is pretenders. The pretenders are people without expertise, insight, or firsthand experience but talk as if they’ve studied for years, are more intelligent than they actually are, or have firsthand experience that they have never gained.
Besides being dishonest, these people have very little understanding to offer others.
Avoid the pontificators
The second type of person to avoid is the pontificators. Pontificators criticize current policies and, at times, preach to others about the policies that should be changed without any standing in the area they’re pontificating about.
These people are expert critics but add very little value to those looking to understand history and events. The third type of person to avoid is petulant people. These are people who simply express irritation and anger without wisdom, insight, or experience.
Petulant people are very disturbed by events but can’t understand the complexity and nuance required to fully comprehend the world around them.
Reliable sources of information are people who have acquired expertise in addressing the subject matter, insight to understand and explain it, and personal experience that gives them an otherwise unattainable advantage.
First and foremost, the person must understand events in a nuanced way. Events are complex, and when someone assumes that everything is black and white, it is a clear sign that they don’t fully grasp events.
The advent and growth of social media have handed everyone a microphone to broadcast their opinions to the entire world. This has benefited the world by breaking the monopoly on ideas and analysis previously held by mainstream and legacy media corporations.
Previously, an independent voice would have had little chance of spreading its viewpoints. Social media has given a platform for these voices to teach the public and gain a following.
Unfortunately, the various social media platforms have yet to devise a way to highlight expert opinions and filter them from the pretenders, pontificators, and petulant. When algorithms push the loudest and most divisive voices, many of the wrong voices are heard more than the voices of experts.
The discerning person will strive to ensure they are learning from insightful experts with personal experience.
The writer is a Zionist educator at institutions around the world. He recently published his book Zionism Today.