[updated to add more typos in the title. they were all on purpose. really! prove me wrong.]
Today Greenwald takes another look at the pathetic pundit class.
How has it come to the point where these people are considered respectable political analysts? They don't often do any actual analysis of anything! They just talk about how certain events might "play," how they'll be perceived. But they rarely make any effort to actually figure out how the public perceives anything; they just offer baseless speculation that fits with conventional narratives. All they're really talking about is how they themselves perceive things, except wording it as what "the people" will think.
Furthermore, even if they managed to actually look at some surveys and figure out what people really think, should that really take up much of their time? Shouldn't they report on what is actually happening? Shouldn't they then analyze it in terms of real-world effects and let people decide for themselves what they think about it? In an hour of programming, no more than 1 minute should be devoted to "analysis" of what people think about things. That stuff should be an afterthought to the real discussion of what is happening and why. That kind of discussion would take some real work though, whereas any idiot can just talk about how good a man in uniform looks or how Hillary is far too shrill to win a popular election. We wouldn't want anyone to have to actually think about something more complicated than high school popularity contests. Mindless fucking idiots lead our political dialog.
1 comment:
I think they live in a closed society comprised of people just like themselves: rich and impressed with themselves. Their opinions are really their wishes, nothing more. And yet they make six or seven figures a year doing it!
Post a Comment