> I suspect this misses some nuance; there is a meaningful difference between people who appear on the media because they want exposure, and people who do it because they want their field of study to be well represented.
I don't think there is a meaningful difference. First, I don't believe people can make choices in any kind of isolation. If you believe you are making a choice without your ego involved, you have simply deceived yourself. Congrats, you have a high functioning ego. Second, even if they could, audiences are not capable of concluding with any reasonable certainty which is motivating someone appearing on television. I don't mean that derisively, like people are stupid, I mean it is essentially beyond humans to do this.
IMO, in the absence of actionable information, it is pointless to speculate. Basically, you cannot know it so it's not worth thinking about.
I think I see your point - from the point of the viewer it's impossible to tell why someone has agreed to be interviewed.
I guess my hypothesis is that you get better information from people whose reason for agreeing to interviews is not self promotion. If true, that's actionable.
I don't think there is a meaningful difference. First, I don't believe people can make choices in any kind of isolation. If you believe you are making a choice without your ego involved, you have simply deceived yourself. Congrats, you have a high functioning ego. Second, even if they could, audiences are not capable of concluding with any reasonable certainty which is motivating someone appearing on television. I don't mean that derisively, like people are stupid, I mean it is essentially beyond humans to do this.
IMO, in the absence of actionable information, it is pointless to speculate. Basically, you cannot know it so it's not worth thinking about.