Finally at a loss for an opinion

I have often joked that if I wrote my autobiography it would be titled Never at a Loss for an Opinion, Which Everyone Is Entitled to, Whether They Want It or Not.

The joke arises from my 50-plus years of providing commentary on politics and government on the national, provincial and local levels, including writing biweekly columns in this space for the past decade.

For better or worse, I have been a pundit, someone who opines regularly on topics about which they are presumed to have some expertise. My days of punditry are over. In grocery terms, I have passed my “best-before date” and thankfully have not reached my “expiry date.”

This will be my last column and my availability to reporters will be limited to topics of deep interest to me.

For several reasons, most academics decline to play the pundit role. Preparing for and talking to the media takes time they believe is better spent on research and engaging with students. Tenure, promotion and salary increases are based mainly on the quantity and quality of a professor’s research and publications, not on the sharing of knowledge with the media and the general public.

Some academics will talk to the media only about their own research, believing that their opinions on other subjects are worth no more than those of any informed citizen. Others decline media interviews because they believe it will involve dumbing down their specialized knowledge for a general public. Others fear they will be misquoted or statements will be taken out of context. Others are “media hesitant” because they lack confidence in their capacity to offer insights in the brief and engaging fashion the media most values.

From 1969 to 2010 I was paid from the public purse to teach Canadian politics, public policy and public administration. This specialty meant there were always more media requests than for colleagues in other fields like political theory or international relations.

No doubt there was some vanity involved with my regular appearances on television and seeing my name in print. However, it was also my belief that I was partly paid to conduct educational outreach and community service.

A colleague once jokingly labelled me “rent-a-quote Thomas,” which is not entirely true since the only media “gigs” that paid a modest fee were election-night coverage for the CBC and this biweekly column.

Because I was a public servant and then a parliamentary intern in the House of Commons before becoming an academic, I developed a strong interest in merging theory and practice and a belief that teaching and learning should go beyond the classroom.

Engaging in media work led to connections with others with shared interests, including providers and users of government services, who taught me a great deal based on the distinctive knowledge which comes from first-hand experience.

I never assumed that my opinions had a wide impact, but the media offered a much larger audience than the handful of academics and students who read my books and journal articles.

That is also why I undertook a number of outside assignments leading or participating in public bodies/inquiries which led to reports and related media coverage, which had educational value even when the recommendations went into a black hole.

In providing commentaries, my goal was always to be accurate, fair and balanced, which hopefully happened more often than not. Positive and negative reactions were in principle equally welcome, but naturally the former led to more satisfaction. I was once threatened with a lawsuit when on television I labelled a candidate in a hopeless cause as a “sacrificial lamb,” an unnecessary attempt on my part to be colourful.

Mistrust of “experts” has always existed, but it is now more widespread than when I first became a commentator. The proliferation of social media has resulted in more mis- and disinformation in circulation. This should mean a greater obligation on academics, whose employment and research has been funded with public money, to share their knowledge on a wide range of topics.

Media outlets should not always return to the “usual suspects.” Rather, they should seek out and encourage younger academics to share their expertise and fresh perspectives. This is made easier today because many academics make use of social media and Substacks to publicize their research and their opinions.

I know from experience that with encouragement and support academics can improve their communications skills to reach both specialist and general audiences.

At CBC, numerous producers and hosts on television and radio patiently tried to make a “decent” commentator out of a woolly headed academic. After rehearsals for election night television coverage, for example, there was a review of the tape and I was coached on how to tell the “big picture” stories behind the constituency-level election results.

Meanwhile, over at the editorial desk of this newspaper, Shannon Sampert recruited me as a regular contributor to this page and along with other editors, like Brad Oswald and Russell Wangersky, curbed my wordiness and taught me not to “bury the lede.”

Punditry has been stimulating and fun for me. My commentaries were often on “wonky” topics so I am grateful if some people found them of value.

Paul G. Thomas is professor emeritus of political studies at the University of Manitoba.