As I said, I don't trust "TV experts" at all, but I tend to trust the real experts. I know they can be wrong, en masse, but they will be wrong less often than I.
I used to be an expert in a couple of extremely narrow fields in which few were interested, and I struggled to explain any of it to anyone.
So, I think this is interesting because there's a certain self-selection.
Being on TV is a skill. Most people don't have it, nor do they want to put in the work to have it. But paradoxically, if you are a dumb TV expert, it means you're still very skilled at being on TV (it's sort of like even if you have a bad sitcom, the people who made it are probably still very talented at making TV compared to most anyone).
Then you have the issue of people who go on TV, have expertise and are either unwilling or unable to get that expertise across. Like, every coach who becomes a commentator knows just a ton about the game, and a lot of players do to. But interestingly, they end up shifting toward being TV blowhards, either because it makes them feel more natural, or because it's easy or because making hot takes brings adulation or whatever.
Guys like Urban, who go on TV, can make longer points, and can deliver something interesting, it's a rare breed. (I wonder if better producers could build more of them? Or better formats? I know someone pointed out the NBA halftime show is no good because they give six people 8 seconds to say things, which is worthless)
