According to the Handbook of Political Communication, “Today’s news systems in the United States is in the ironic situation of having evolved as an essential tool of government at a time when audiences increasingly mistrust politicians and journalists” (Kaid 283). Throughout this election we saw a lot of people, that aren’t journalists, commenting on what was going on and offering their opinions.
The pundits for this election are very diverse they range in age, race, and gender. According to an article from the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/02/arts/television/02pund.html), the 2008 pundits are very diverse, CNN has Cuban-born strategist and Fox News has a Mexican-American strategist, and black commentators under 40 at CNN have been the “breakout stars” of the election (Lee).
Pundits are also coming from all different places. In a New York Times article about training to be a pundit (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/26/fashion/26pundit.html?_r=1&scp=7&sq=pundits&st=cse&oref=slogin), it says that, “Journalists once had to achieve a certain gravitas before appearing as a political expert, but not anymore” (Parker). One well known pundit is Luke Russert, who was hired this summer by NBC to cover the youth vote. Russert is only 23 and just graduated from college in May 2008, but his father is the late Tim Russert so that helped him get his foot in the door. People don’t have to work as hard to be taken seriously anymore, so the pundits are becoming younger.
According to Kaid, “The news is n a state of continual change, defined and redefined by economics, journalism, technology, politics, and publics” (Kaid 283). Do you think that the change in the pundits is permanent or do you think it was different this year because of how important everyone was saying this election was? Also do you take these pundits seriously? Do you think it’s better for pundits to build more credibility or to start early and learn as they go along?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Alexandra,
I like your points here about pundits and journalists, and the differences. I think it is also important to acknowledge that while we know the difference between pundits and journalists, a lot of media consumers may not – and there is always the risk that people are considering pundits opinions so highly, thinking they are journalists. In all reality, opinion has no place in the newsroom, but yet it has been inescapable all campaign long. I wondered why, and after reading the chapter I came to the conclusion that it really has to be driven by the desire to earn money and gain viewers to improve ratings. While expert opinions are fine and good and necessary to forming educational opinions, what qualifies these pundits to be all over the television screen, all the time?
Kaid said, “ Perhaps the greatest changes in the recent period have been in the economic realm, where profit pressures have invaded the newsroom, setting the economic gate keeping apparatus into new and often antagonistic relations with the others. “ ( 283) With all the other gate keeping theories, I believe this is the one that is most apparent, and makes the most sense – today.
When Kaid describes the model and the four main gates, no where is there room for pundits.
I liked the article you posted about “Training a Pundit.” I had no idea there was such a concept of pundit-training. I was sort of surprised, although – nothing about this election could surprise me anymore.
While the news is in a constant state of change, so are campaigning techniques, triumphs and faux pas . When the two are combined, both positive and negative effects are bound to happen.
I believe the increased diversity of political pundits occurred because of the increased importance of diversifying television news.
Pundits are an interesting part of the news. They give their opinion to publicly represent what a portion of the public is thinking. But the question still remains, do people take pundits seriously? I believe they do. Although I am set in my political views, I can’t help but listen to what they have to say. I guess you can say I’m one of the suckers who thinks-- Hey, if they’re on television, they must have something important to say-- and I don’t think I’m alone. I’m glad that the blogger differentiated a pundit, from a journalist, but many people are unaware of this difference. Kaid states, “the ideal that most reporters are the real gatekeepers of news remains dominant in the minds of most citizens, and many academics and journalists” (295). Because many people are unaware of the difference between reporters and pundits, they will look at the latter as “the real gatekeepers of news” as well. Because of this, people take pundits quite seriously. And they should! Although pundits do not speak for everyone, they give an educated political view. By watching different news sources, and listening to various pundits, people can walk away with a great deal of knowledge.
I believe pundits should build credibility before they give political commentary. Like I said before, people on the news should have something important to say. Kaid writes, “Good reporters can smell a story. They recognize good sources. They know what the narrative is, even if they must learn it the hard way, through the coaching of more seasoned veterans” (295). I believe the same standards should be used when hiring political pundits.
The presidential election of 2008 has changed or questioned so much of what we thought we knew about politics and political communication. Race, age, and gender really had to be reflected on, not only referring to the candidates but to the target audiences as well. So of course it is expected that coverage of the election would change, too, and the use of pundits is obviously included. All of the aforementioned reflections led to the diversity of pundits, but I don’t think that seeking out diversity for diversity’s sake was a good idea.
I definitely agree with the Parker quote from the lead, that the pundit should be well established as journalist or as a political expert before actually appearing as such. It gives real journalists a bad reputation to have everyone and their brother commenting on the election just because someone gave them air time. It’s a problem because the common viewer is not trained to know the difference between journalists and non-journalists, because they all are on television these days. It almost seems unfair that, as Bennett says in the Handbook of Political Communications, “many of the defining elements of traditional journalistic gatekeeping have indeed been lost in the recent rush to technological and profit-driven news judgments” (Kaid 288). Anyone, even with clear and pronounced biases can go on TV as a pundit, when there are journalists out there who often strive for fair and unbiased in their reporting styles, and again, the common public doesn’t know the difference.
Though this year’s election was different, I think the change in pundits is definitely here to stay, as now it will appear normal and expected to have every single section of every voting bloc represented on TV. But if I am to take these pundits seriously in the future, I would want them to have some sort of built up credibility. I think it’s scary that someone like me, young and opinionated with a background in communications but not a lot of real experience, could just automatically become a spokesperson for that target audience. Because that’s what I feel like when I see pundits on TV, and I think it should scare other people, too.
As far as the diversity of pundits goes, I agree that is is here to stay and that this historic election has sparked the beggining of some progress in both our nation and our media. However, the New York Times article also points out that "White men were the hosts of all major sunday morning talk shows, the major prime-time cable news programs, and excepts for Katie Courac, a relative newcomber the network evening broadcasts." I think that these opinionated talk show hosts and pundits that are on during prime time are the ones that the majority of Americans are watching and listen to with respect. I think it will still take a while for more female, black, hispanic pundits to get the same air time as the white males.
As far as whether or not people believe pundits, Kaid explains, "social changes broadly associated with globalization have resulted in fundamental shifts in social structure, along with changes in political identity and attitudes about authority" (309). I think that many people seriously consider pundit's analysis and opinions but are still aware that it is not the only opinion. Most Americans who are listening to pundits usually feel strongly one way or another and will not change their political perspective, and I would hope that most undecided that are sitting and taking the time to listen to political analysts understand that they should not allow others to tell them how they think. People that are that easily swayed are probably not going to spend their time watching pundits anyways.
I also agree with your opinion when it comes to pundits and journalists. I feel that we live in an era where the line between the two has gotten blurred and many people may not be aware of the differences. Since many people may not be aware of the differences between pundits and journalists they may trust in a pundit more if they feel the pundit has a better personality or has a better connection with the viewer. Pundits need to identify themselves to help avoid the mix up between what is a pundit and what is a journalist in order to keep the journalists reputation. According to The Handbook of Communications “many of the defining elements of traditional journalistic gatekeeping have indeed been lost in the recent rush to technological and profit-driven news judgments” (Kaid 288).With the end of the 2008 election and the beginning of a new era for the United States, I feel it is extremely important that the definition of a pundit and a journalist be defined in order for viewers to better understand the world of politics. Where I think it is important for these pundits to learn early and gain experience I think they need to explain further what they are and where they stand as opposed to a journalist.
Post a Comment