Have been pondering for a while how to distinguish specialists (a preferable term in this context to experts) on twitter, between those broadly neutral and those clearly partisan. Two ways I think - neutral specialists will admit errors, and not always take the same side...
Yesterday UK trade specialists were trying quickly to tell which parts of the proposed UK text had not been seen before. In doing so among the cross checking I made at least one error, and there were a couple of others I spotted. Hands up to that. Partisans never admit errors.
In Brexit twitter it is common for neutral analysts to be accused of being EU shills. Of late US defenders of the WTO have been accused of being China shills. All said analysts have at times been critical of the EU or China. Their accusers are never critical of their own side.
The neutral have different sympathies, and shockingly very different opinions to each other on some details. Their debates can be quite heated. Partisan specialists by contrast start with the agreed line and then have to justify it.
Just thoughts as seen from the UK Brexit battle, and now the US WTO arguments. It won't stop me being accused, usually of being an EU shill, occasionally of drinking the Brexit kool-aid. Or of others. Hopefully helpful in understanding what we see. /end
One suggestion - and glad for it - is that you can be an honest partisan - those who admit they have a side, try to be honest when they make mistakes, but are clearly in campaigning mode. Wodering if that's a different category than specialist though.
