Let's look at the election just past. The newly elected haven't even taken their seats yet but are being soundly criticized for what they haven't done.
The about to be Republican leadership has set forth issues they'd like to take priority but have yet to lay out the details. I can understand that. Up until the results were final they had no sure idea of who they would be working with - or against. Both the House and Senate have mavericks who will have to be controlled. At least we should give the leadership the chance.
Maybe the criticism would be better aimed at those mavericks who because of their own ambition can sabotage good work. Or let them have the guts to run for leadership and see how many will actually back them. Not enough? Then sit down and be quiet. Or as Chris Christie would say, "Sit down and shut up!"
There is so much that goes on behind the scenes to which we are not privy it seems fool hardy to be constantly griping about things that might not even happen. It seems pundits have very strong opinions on what should and should not be. I wonder how they form their opinions. It certainly isn't from looking at all sides of an issue. In many ways the conservative pundits are as bad as they'd like us to believe the Democrats are. It has to be their way or no way.
I can listen to a Charles Krauthammer and learn because he is well informed and thoughtful. I can listen to a Sean Hannity and cringe at his shallowness and arrogance. Why is he even on the air? He alternates between preening and fawning and bullying therefore nullifying anything positive that might be gleaned from his interviews.
Print journalism is still the best source for information. Even with that you still have to know the slant of the papers and read from each to determine where slant ends and fact begins. Keeping informed is time consuming and an inexact science at best. Perhaps this is why so many people don't bother.
Maybe outlawing pundits and the sound bite would force them into doing a bit more to keep informed. But I doubt it. I figure most would rely more heavily on Twitter than The Wall Street Journal or The New York Times. Talk about opposing points of view!
Funny. Pundits are supposed to be experts on a subject. Why are so many so one dimensional about so much? Does anyone really listen to them?
