Candidates speak, pundits blather
By Chuck Doud
The Madera Tribune
The political pundits, anchor people and talk-show hosts of the television networks covering the Democratic convention seem to spend more time interviewing themselves than they do explaining what is going on during the convention sessions.
That is a reflection of something that often happens to journalists covering politics and entertainment (what’s the difference, you may ask?). They begin to think of themselves as equal to or even greater than the story they are covering.
Some of the reason for that comes from hero worship. The reporters and commentators become focused on whom they cover, begin to see themselves as political equals and assume that what they, the journalists, think is as significant as what the candidates or entertainers say or do.
Another cause is self-spotlighting. The commentators and pundits talk among themselves, and come to believe what whatever they agree on is better public policy or more entertaining than the story they are covering.
This phenomenon is amusing, but a little of it goes a long way. If you were to collect all the so-called pundits’ predictions made during the primary, you would find that most of their assertions were wrong. However, talking among themselves, they had come to believe that they had to be right.
For example, they had to be right that Hillary Clinton couldn’t be beaten. They also had to be right that John McCain didn’t have a chance. Those were the fast-held views of the majority of the people considered to be the media’s foremost political experts. But at the convention, these same pundits still were talking as if they actually knew something.
How much do they really know? Let one of them run for office and see how long she or he lasts.
