James Joyner posts on the ubiquity of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato in the mass media. Like Joyner, I think part of the explanation is media laziness (and part of it is Sabato’s self-promotion), and I expect research on media expert use i...

My point there was to rebut the idea that, just because Sabato is being called on for quotes, others are being ignored.

Sure, Sabato is a genuine expert on electoral politics. As the piece notes, though, he is frequently called upon for commentary well outside his expertise. That's just the nature of punditry, though. Sabato isn't a pure political scientist anymore; he's a talking head who's also a scholar.

Kondrackie, McLauglin, and Matthews have spent decades reporting and commenting on public policy issues and spend hours each week talking to the top policymakers and other experts. Like everyone in the game, they have to talk about too many issues to be genuinely knowledgeable on all of them, but their insights are not meaningless blather.

I spent election night 1998 doing commentary for a Montgomery radio station, even though I likely knew less about the local races than the show’s host, who had been covering Alabama politics for years. But, because I had “Dr.” in front of my name, I was the “expert.”

Im not sure putting yourself in the same league as Sabato is appropriate. Larry was a Rhodes scholar, has written 20 books--nearly all of which have been on campaigns and elections. He is also the director of a major research center at one of the top research institutions in the country.

The laziness is not in reporters contacting Sabato for analysis--but rather in media outlets contacting people who admit that "they know less about local races."

More insidious is the fact that idiots with absolutely no expertise about political analysis, foreign affairs, public policy like Morton Kondrackie, John McLauglin, or Chris Matthews are elevated to the status of informed observers.

Sabato is a genuine scholar and expert.