Why analysts analyze, and why reporters quote them

I recently reported on an investor who has research that suggests stock in one of the most prominent employers in Las Vegas stands to lose as much as 65 percent of its value.
The investor, Reggie Middleton, isn't widely quoted in the media but has a strong track record forecasting the commercial and residential real estate crises and downfalls of companies long before executives and business publications acknowledge problems.
Middleton's track record surpasses that of many widely quoted analysts. Which has me thinking about why we quote who we quote.
It's funny, I think there are a lot of people who think if an analyst doesn't move markets immediately the analyst isn't effective. Conversely, there are alleged gurus out there who with a raise of the eyebrow seem to make markets dip or jump.
That's backward.
If an analyst is depending on a panicked reaction to his/her work then something is wrong, they're writing to idiots and probably counting on a lack of critical thinking to obscure thin research.
An effective analyst is one who can report -- before others -- forces at play in the economy or at a particular company and explain why those forces are relevant.
And that research is most effective when it forces other smart investors to look at the issue differently, investigate and verify the information on their own, and come to an independent conclusion.
If reporters did a better job seeking quality analysis, instead of simply accepting work of widely quoted analysts, perhaps we could have noticed the nation's economic problems as they were forming.