More About Lazy Journalism and Experts
Whether one wants to admit it or not, therapy is a business as well as a vocation and it is perfectly understandable that people who are in private practice want to get their names out in order to gain much needed exposure in order to grow their practices. Having said that, in the past I have talked about lazy journalism where reporters so desperate for an expert will consult anyone who is willing to go on record in order to give a perceived validity to the piece.
I was reading an article today, as I thought about what to write about and came across an article where the hypnotherapist who was cited as an “expert” had no qualifications in the subject to which expertise was being offered. I went on to this practitioner’s website to see that this individual was offering treatment for advance psychological issues like body dysmorphia and other conditions where most would agree a psychological or psychotherapeutic background would be needed to understand the dynamics of these conditions in full in order to offer the best care.
No such qualifications were listed by this practitioner. This is the sort of thing I will be talking to the James Braid Society about next Thursday. I am not saying that a little “bigging up” is a bad thing when growing your practice. However, giving the impression that you are far more qualified than you are and using your testimonials as evidence of your clinical competence, is quite another thing indeed. I do so wish journalists would check their experts before they quote them and I do so wish that practitioner would act with restraint when approached to give opinions on subjects that they are not clinically qualified to give.
