How did pundits get here?

Talk about a target rich environment. The question can apply to tv, radio, printed media, and even the blogosphere.

The purpose is good. Smart people who can write and research well tell us their political opinion of the news, as we all read and hear and see it. For many they are a shortcut to doing our homework about what is going on. Some do more research than others, and some even report their news. We citizens can pick and choose.

The business of media is what generated this newest group making a living. The many news businesses and their cycles have required filler time. Editorials and the onslaught of tv and the internet needing space to be filled seems to have had a big impact. Before tv and the internet, the pundit population was mostly limited to the printed press. They were often called op ed writers, or even editors of newspapers, often called editorial writers.

As Bob Dylan wrote and sang, the times they are a changing.

The present day market of paid pundits expanded to fill the requirement. Sounds too simple, and even crude, but that is a good explanation.

So what are their qualifications? Did we vote for them? Who pays for their work?

Their common trait is the ability to write. In the case of radio, speaking is a common bond. In the case of tv, being pretty is a preferred quality. In the case of the east coast media out of New York City or DC, congeniality with the politics of the business managers and hired editors and peers seems to be important. None are voted on, except (thank goodness) in the world of ratings. And ratings influence incomes, so we voters are indirectly involved.

The USA media world has changed so much since the days of printed media that pundits now do as much reporting of the “news” as the old time newspapers and magazines. This is bad for us citizens since many pundits seem to write to each other and compete for their egos (and sometimes jobs). Why this is bad for us citizens is that they often reverberate the same news around, often the news generated by a “real” reporter. While this is good for pundits, this is bad for those of us “just seeking the news”.

None of us expect the same information, or even intelligence, that our political leaders get. This would expose sources. And especially we citizens do not expect to know leaks, mostly since most leaks are anonymous and obviously from someone with an agenda.

Does having paid pundits make sense? Yes, since this is a business that pays. Does this pundit business benefit we citizens? I don’t know.