By Brendan Raleigh
Round Table reporter
The world of political punditry is one void of any middle ground or even a valid purpose. Whether it’s Ed Schultz claiming that he’d cheat in an election to keep Scott Brown out of office or Sean Hannity saying that Democrats deserve to be tortured and killed in Guantanamo, the worthlessness of these opinion programs has become increasingly evident due to the most prominent news networks’ reliance on them for ratings. The purpose that journalism used to serve has been overshadowed by the growing popularity of shows based almost entirely on feelings rather than facts.
While the stars of shows like Countdown and Hannity should (and would likely claim to) base their broadcasts around their own opinions, they choose to adhere strictly to their respective ideologies by repeating the accepted views of their target audience and blatantly insulting anyone who disagrees.
Most monologues don’t even concern political issues, but, rather, politicians or rival commentators. When someone’s argument consists of labeling an opponent as a “pinhead” or “the worst person in the world” each week, the lack of any substance in their position becomes apparent. A legitimate point being made by a pundit is about as likely as an original song being written by Nickelback.
The result is a completely polarized body of voters who are only used to hearing their side of an issue. Understanding and compromise become foreign concepts when the slightest disagreement is met with unmitigated contempt from both sides. A people’s unwillingness to cooperate with or even listen to their opposition halts any progress that might otherwise be made toward a truly civilized democracy. When both halves of the country’s opinions differ so vastly, then neither party should be expected to get everything it wants.
The hosts’ inability to make relevant political arguments, however, is not entirely their fault. If they were never hired by a network, then obviously they wouldn’t need to be concerned with maintaining their viewership, therefore no longer having to resort to puerile name calling. If a shoe-salesman is hired as an anesthesiologist, it’s not his fault when a patient regains consciousness in the middle of his appendectomy; it’s his employer’s.
Pundits are not chosen based on their political acumen, but on whether they have interesting and magnetic personalities. Facts do not draw in viewers, but fiery (albeit empty) speeches do. This is why people like Keith Olbermann, a former football announcer, would be chosen over those with political backgrounds.
In order for these commentators to serve a useful purpose, they need to try to balance the use of facts with meaningless rhetoric. This equilibrium, however, may be difficult to find. Thirty minutes of a man screaming about how insane his opponents are may be entertaining, but serves no intellectual purpose. Plainly stating statistics and studies, on the other hand, would drive the show to cancellation.
If political commentators would choose to present their actual views in a respectful and intelligent manner, then society would benefit from a more informed constituency. The complete abolishment of these types of shows is an unrealistic goal, however, as doing so would completely bankrupt most news networks. There is also the chance that a pundit may actually contribute positively to society. After all, some people think “Rockstar” is a good song.
