How many TV personalities are really clued up about their suggested expertise?

[AnotherPrickInTheWall]

Sorry about disjointed grammar.
I'm a keen gardener and have worked in horticulture on and of for about 15 years.
I have a massive collection of books on the subject and love to dip into them when I get a moment to myself.
Recently I bought a few books on Amazon written by the well know organic gardener Bob Flowerdew.
Nicely illustrated and fairly informative, but nothing the average organic gardener wouldn't already know about.
I delved further and did a bit of research on him.
I've met the bloke twice, a bit of an eccentric but not particularly interested in discussing his chosen field.
Thing is there is something lacking in his work history that leads me to think he was randomly picked by TV producers because of his persona and not about his actual knowledge of gardening. Does having a long plait and being out of he ordinary qualify as giving good entertainment value.?
I do wonder about a few other people I've seen on TV; chefs in particular.

I suspect that part of the problem is that there aren’t enough experts with the time and inclination to make TV programmes in their exact field, so producers have to go to the next best thing – someone vaguely connected to the area who wants a media career and doesn’t have any scruples about passing themselves off as something they’re not. Producers often aren’t very picky.

A few years ago I turned down a request from BBC3 to do a one-off programme about something I knew a bit about but didn’t feel comfortable pretending to be an expert on. I was repeatedly told that didn’t matter; I disagreed and suggested several colleagues who knew much more about it. But no, they definitely wanted me. This seemed very odd and I kept pushing them about why. Eventually they told me that it was because they wanted a female academic under 35 and I was the only one who fitted that description and worked in a related area.

A historian friend of mine was chased for ages to front a programme on his very popular field – he was young, not bad looking, from the country concerned (e.g an Indian historian of India or a Mexican historian of Mexico), and definitely an expert. He didn’t want to do it – he was working on a major book and couldn’t spare the time – but they kept pushing him to say yes (they had to give up in the end). I think a lot of academics are suspicious of TV academics because we all know how little we actually know about our subject and we all have so much research and teaching to do, so anyone who doesn’t seem to worry about those things always seems questionable. Except Mary Beard, who is brilliant. Andrew Hussey, who presents programmes on France and does exactly the kind of research that fits with what he does on TV, is another honourable exception.

On the other hand, some academics love the idea. My old department had a directory of experts and we were asked to list the subjects on which we’d be prepared to do media work. One of my colleagues put down ‘anything’. He is the vainest man I’ve ever met (an impressive achievement given the vanity levels in academia) and has no time for trivial things like teaching or admin, and his research career seems to consist entirely of jumping on the nearest passing academic bandwagon, so TV presenting would be ideal for him. Oddly enough, no-one seems to want him . One of my current colleagues is never off TV – oddly, he too can’t be bothered with trivialities like students.

It baffles me how Amanda Holden became a talent show judge. She was a crap actor in a sitcom about hairdressers, married a famous guy, and that qualifies her to judge others?

I guess she's just good at injecting mawkish sentimentality into a glorified karaoke contest.

I have caught many snippets of the lovely Lucy Worsley's programmes, thanks to my DH and DF's devotion to her. And from what I remember she spends a lot of time talking to bona fide experts and getting them to tell/show her the answers, rather than pretending she knows it all herself. In particular she never pretended to know the first thing about dance in her show with Len Goodman. I think that's fine - likewise Fiona Bruce doesn't need any antiques credentials to say "Fred, you're our watercolour expert, tell us about this painting then. Worth a few bob is it?" And Mel and Sue don't need to be able to bake.

Dan Snow OTOH can sod right off.

I also get irritated by the opposite effect. Dr Professor Maggie Aderin-Pocock asking the visiting boffin "So, you're researching "comets". That sounds very exciting, what are they then? Gosh, really?" Or Jim Al Khalili doing his "I'm just a humble professor of physics so you'll have to talk me through this GCSE biology/chemistry veeerrrrrry sloooowwwwllly" act. I understand why they do it but it's so fake that it grind my gears.

And while we're on the subject, Katherine Bloody Jenkins. If you haven't ever performed in an opera then you're not an "opera singer".

I mentioned this thread to OH; he said "has anyone mentioned Dan Snow?" I reassured him

I totally agree, OP. Re gardening I think the mold was broken after Geoff Hamilton. What that man didn't know abut gardening could be written on a pin head and he was a natural on television. I shudder to think back on some of the so called garden makeover shows which always seemed to result in too much decking and awful planting. I wouldn't let them near my garden with a bargepole.

A lot of these z listers who act as judges on reality shows are chosen because they are a known face, despite having zero knowledge or experience - it's really insulting.

I always used to watch Strictly Come Dancing but Alisha Dixon joined as a judge and she did not have a clue what the hell she was doing. Her comments on the dancing were totally puerile and she irritated me so much I turned off and haven't watched since.

This is why I watch The Beechgrove Garden. It's the Scottish Gardner's World. Its like going back in time to Geoff Hamilton days.

shamelessmailhack I often ask myself the same question re Amanda Holden

I don't have a problem with anyone not having lacking actual qualifications.
It's the presenters that know less than your average person in their field.
Entertainment value is important ,but when it comes to actually educating their audience they really ought to know what they are talking about.

So it won't surprise you to know the keywords are TV presenter. It's a skill in it's own right. Done well, the presenter comes out a winner even if they talk nonesense. So Amanda Holden is attractive (TV LOVES pretty faces as we know) and she has been on tv enough to know how it works. Cox is a gift. A genuine scientist with solid gold credentials AND he is attractive to the youth market and is able to enthuse about his subject without reverting to formulae. Clarkson was actually a journalist who got into tv and his 'personality' worked for him in the way Gordon Ramsay 's did. Clarkson was also savvy enough to buy TG from the BBC. Doesn't matter how much you know about your subject(s). If you can't entertain/make it interesting you won't last.

'Property Expert' Amanda Lamb from A Place in the Sun. Actually she's a model / tv presenter.
I think Lucy Worsley is great. I think as long as someone presenting a documentary that isn't about their particular field doesn't pretend to know it all and is deferential to the real experts (as Lucy is imo) I don't have a problem with it. Presenting a TV program is a skill that a lot of academics may not have!