The Devolution of Punditry

Everyone probably knows by now that I love the Daily Show. As someone who hates politics and comedy, it's a beautiful juxtaposition of sarcasm and news that resonates with me far better than either stand-up or the news could. I "get" it, essentially, making it more enjoyable than most other programs, which is probably why I watch little tv.

Now, before the Daily Show comes on, sometimes I watch Countdown with Keith Olberman. I know, I can hear the mix of cheers and hisses already. Whatever your view of Keith, it's probably pretty polarized. I don't know many people who are apathetic towards him, you either love him or hate him. Much like his Conservative counterpart, Bill O'Reilly. Recently, a friend of mine said they hated Olberman cause his hate speech was exactly the same as O'Reilly, just on the opposite side.

I disagree, but I can see not only why he thought that, but how it could become the case.

So this post is to 1) Defend my love of Keith, despite my conservatism, as well as 2) offer a warning against becoming the thing he hates most.

~~~

I watch very little news. I either find it really depressing or boring. Time is a bit at a premium for me so it's not like I have a lot of time to keep up anyway. Normally, I look to Andrew to help fill me in for the most part. He's also my own personal pundit.

Punditry is a new notion for me. I never thought you could get away with blasting your opinion at people, but apparently not only are you allowed to, people get paid to. Pundits are the in between of the News and the Daily Show. They comment, but normally in all seriousness, which is probably why John has such an easy time making fun of them. And I think they SHOULD take themselves seriously, and take what they say seriously becasue people are LISTENING. It's somewhat depressing, but true. People are usually sheep, and need someone to tell them what to think. Even if that's not why they watch, it's good to get different perspectives, so the argument should be presented well so as to not misrepresent your view.

Which brings me to the comparison. It's no secret Olberman hates O'Reilly and probably the other way around, too. So here's my view on both:

I respect Bill O'Reilly because when he started, there were very few people doing what he did and no one as vocally. He stood up for what he believed in when it was not a popular view and he stuck to it. Kudos for that. Now though, I don't know which would be sadder: If he didn't really believe everything that flies out of his mouth...or if he did.

I appreciate when people are consistent with their beliefs. Walkin' the walk, as it were. But when, in defense of your beliefs (which may not necessarily be wrong), you present arguments that are factually innacurate and use purposefully inflammatory language to illicit an emotional response...to me, you've already lost the fight. Because at that point, you're not trying to convince someone, you're trying to piss them off. Now I know, different methods work with different people, and sometimes a little bit of shock treatment helps the medicine go down, but...to put it mildly, I think he overdoes it. It's not longer shock treatment it's 'I get paid to be loud, obnoxious and aggravating, because that's what gets us more ratings'. Do I think he got into it for the money? Absolutely not. Do I think that he's figured out that being explosive gets him mroe ratings and therefore higher pay? Yes.

Now, another thing that frustrates me is how many people only watch one side of the story. I literally want to weep when I hear "I get all my news from Bill O'Reilly". Same with Olberman, no one should get ALL their news from them. I personally get all my news from the Daily Show ^.^. (Kidding)

So there's my problem with Bill O'Reilly...he's loud and very often, he's WRONG. Some things are matters of perspective and belief, and in that, I don't count him as right or wrong. He believes X, even if I don't, I can understand his point of view. But when he gives evidence, there's so many times where he's talking out his hat...which is apparently resting on his rear. And he makes people like me look bad.

Flip to the other side. I like Olberman because he's eloquent and verbose. I feel smarter for listening to all the big words ;) Often, I think when he waxes sarcastic, it's hilarious and there is something to be said for the humor of seeing someone so full of hate. I don't think he's as far left as O'Reilly is far right, though obviously, he's not central. I agree with a lot of his ideas in theory, though not always in execution and like when O'Reilly was doing it, I appreciate someone being critical of those in power.

Yet, I sense a danger here, and to explain it, we are going to dip into history.

For the first two centuries (AD), Christianity was a persecuted religion. To even say you were a Christian was to invite torture, and often death. But in 300 AD onward, it moves from an underground movement to the licensed and sponsored church of the state. This is one of the reasons tat about 350 we see the rise of monostaries. Before, to show your devotion to God/Jesus, you just had to say what you believed, but that wasn't enough anymore. Quite literally "everyone was doin' it". So to go farther, to prove just how zealous you were, you would join a monostary.

I think something like this happened with BillO. When he started, he was in the minority, he was radical for saying what he did. But with the hyperconservatism of the Bush administration, he found himself being in the mainstream, now in the 'safe zone'. So to show just how conservative he was, he 'right-wing', when it was popular to be right-wing, he went farther and farther to the right. Now, I think he's being a showman.

Now, he'll be in the minority again and hopefully be coming up with better, more reasoned arguments because he'll be fighting the not-popular side again. Which goes back to Keith. Keith is now in BillO's shoes, which gives him a great deal of power...and also sets him up to make the same mistakes.

He can afford to get sloppy now because less people need convincing. I think he's gone to great lengths to build up his credibility, and I'd hate to see him spend it unwisely. So while at the moment, I'm still more inclined to listen to Keith than Bill, but I'm wary of what the future will bring.

Thoughts, fellow philosophers?