... Many analysts say that "analysts say" pieces are the laziest form of journalism, because the "analysts" usually just happen to say what the journalist himself would say if the rules of journalism permitted him to do so without putting the opinions in the mouths of "analysts." Meanwhile, analysts who might say something else get ignored. But at least "analysts say" pieces, analysts say, should quote some analysts saying the things the analysts are supposed to have said. Otherwise the impression is overwhelming that the journalist who wrote the thing is just spouting off. According to observers.
At Google, what analysts say, according to observers.
Update: Avoid weasel words like "Critics/experts say that..." or "Observers say..."; that's the "consensus of many editors" according to the Wikipedia Manual of Style. (Apparently "Apparently..." is listed in error, since I use it here all the time.)