We are becoming a nation of pundits. Pundits have turned much of our news into a “style ” like the eternal little black dress and the idea that black is chic to wear everywhere and anytime. The problem is pundits should not be everywhere and anytime– it’s annoying.
The term pundit originated in the 17th century from the Hindu word Pandita, meaning “learned.” A more recent American dictionary meaning of pundit is; usually an elderly person noted for wisdom, knowledge and good judgement–an authority. Does this sound to you like anyone we see or hear, day in and day out on any of our 24/7 media outlets on TV, radio, print or web? I can think of only a few pundits that fit this description because true pundits aren’t in-your-face constantly, they are too busy honing their expert skills. People like Glenn Beck, Nancy Grace, Ann Coulter, Elliot Spitzer and Bill O’Reilly are considered pundits of politics, pop culture or law. So, obviously the meaning has evolved.
Do I value the judgement of pundits? Mostly, no. I do however, value my own judgement, so if you want to just hand me the unfiltered news I think I might be able to make heads or tails of it myself. On the other hand, I would be open to a well-researched, knowledgeable opinion from someone totally in-the-loop, an expert in the field, as it were. Any takers?
The pundit label has a much more casual meaning today in a sort of casual-Friday type way. It seems you can sort-of have knowledge and kind-of have wisdom and flip-flop that good judgement around like well–flip-flops. Even some of the pundits that I sometimes agree with like Ed Schultz or Rachel Maddow of MSNBC , get on their TV and radio soap boxes and talk til’ I drop. I like opinion, I even have one but I don’t necessarily need it dissected and spoon fed to me, with a dose of bias lacking in any facts, which some pundits are prone to do.
Some radio pundits show their knowledge to listeners by cutting off their callers with differing views and TV pundits have been known to cry and yell on the air, in order to get across their infinite wisdom. These people are doing nothing to elevate the stature of pundit. There really should be levels. We have A list and B list movie stars, why not common ratings for pundits?
A “real” pundit should have the knowledge and credentials to back up an informed opinion. It wouldn’t even hurt for some topics, to expect pundits to have serious academic or scholarly experience in a subject. A kind of, know-before-you-go type of thing rather than a shoot-from-the-hip style. I’ve actually heard people say that many years ago in media land, experts or pundits used to at least attempt to be unbiased and didn’t affiliate themselves with a specific movement or even align themselves with media outlets–imagine that!
4 responses to “Punditry is the New Black”
Wouldn’t it be refreshing if our pundits were to receive ratings based on their knowledge of their chosen subject? We actually might get the real story on things if that was the case.. You present a very well-considered point of view!
Thanks for stopping by. I’ve seen your blog-it’s great.
pundit or punditry?! a little confuse!
Punditry is what pundits do. Both nouns.