C&L's Accountability for the Punditocracy Proposal
(The above graphic is Michael O'Hanlon, who is a perfect example of a war-hawk that has been wrong most of the time.)
Punditocracy: A group of pundits who wield great political influence.
Here's a review of Eric Alterman's book called: Sound and Fury: The Making of the Punditocracy
Jack Tapper makes this observation on CNN's Reliable Sources in response to Jon Stewart pointing out how many pundits got their primary predictions wrong. This is something we've all been talking about on the liberal blogs for years now:
TAPPER: It's too bad there is no accountability for pundits the way that there is for doctors and brokers.
C&L and many other blogs have become the magnifying glass which scrutinizes the pundits that inhabit our airwaves and calls them out when they are culpable for the many wrongs we see on a daily basis. Tapper hints at that there should be some sort of culpability factor, but when we do it, they usually recoil in outrage. Glenn Greenwald's email chain to John King is a perfect example of this reaction to valid criticism. Forget about the predictions game on an election cycle because voters end up deciding the outcome, but how about when an issue like a possible WAR is being debated and the public only has the Punditocracy class as their information messengers, so to speak ?
Here's a few things the networks can do to clean up their act. (h/t Nicole for some suggestions)
1) Set up an Ombudsman with a staff for each network that isn't an employee of their corporation and have a weekly segment devoted to policing the media. They will also be available to take complaints reported by individual citizens and investigate them thoroughly.
2) Replay clips of each pundit when they've been proven wrong and let them explain their positions and why they thought they were right and ask them how they will correct their mistakes in the future.
3) Keep track of their infractions and set up a benchmark, like a 3 strikes your out rule for pundits. When they hit the benchmark, suspend them for a period of time so they can reflect on their mistakes.
4) When they return to work, ask them why they should be believed in the future.
5) It would be nice if they stopped using pundits that we know have been wrong over and over again.
Please add to the list...
DUDE!!!!!!!!!
new post at my blog and danke C&L for a kick ass blog !
WOW! i made first and second ,,,,
yo folks and how are ya?
It's a great idea John, but um......when politicians are unaccountable for their actions, why should pundits be held to a higher level? Most are former politicians/crooks anyway, so it's kinda hard to shake that lifelong lying streak.
I say tie 'em all to cement trucks and drop 'em in the Marianas Trench . . . but that's just me. =)
Politicians and pundits have been peddling stuff to people for years just to get their votes, but they never deliver.
In the back room it's business as usual.
And to think, these guys are going to be paid a bundle by Faux News for they're insights. Christ, now I'm depressed again. Better take some Prozac.
ConcernedCanuck @ 3:
Politicians are accountable for their actions, at the ballot box and by the GAO/ Congress/ DoJ and various other legal methods.
Pundits are accountable to their bosses, their viewers, advertisers and the ratings.
I can't help but to believe such a system would be flawed because the people the watchdogs would police would be in close quarters with the people they are charged with policing and this would invariably lead to conflicts of interest. Plus unless the watchdogs were completely independent from the government you would inevitably find them being used by the government to only police the media in regards to things they don't want the public to know.
Trouble with an Ombudsman system, if its anything like the FCC and gets staffed by Bushco appointees, then its toothless apart from whatever trendy GOP morality they are trying to ram down our throats at any one time.
Also they tend to be set up as trade associatin type bodies, which means they are voluntary membership by their members and its more an honor system, and the MSM under its corporate feudalship owners dont care one iota about honor or truth, just money and lies for more money.
I've often wanted some brave and perspicacious soul to systematically collect the predictions of politicians (although business guys/stock shouters/scientists/preachers would be fair game) and see if we could determine if they came true or not. I remember keeping a eye on Pat Robertson for a while, and all of his predictions (South African race war e.g.) flopped. The Iraq War alone would be a challenge just to get all the piled up lies we now know to be whack. It would be a sordid business, and pretty much a full time job...
Your plan would actually rub their noses in it. I like it.
Of course, we need to haul the punditocracy in front of a Peace and Reconciliation Commission, also.
BuddyGoodness @ 8:
yes, very hard to have a good system of checks and balances, doesnt mean we dont need one tho.
#6 - Force the pundits - and all involved parties for that matter - to disclose any conflicts of interest that may result in the loss of trust. Examples: speaking positively of a party that has given them $$$, in cash or in "speaking, advisory, or consulting" fees; relative that works in a government agency (don't specifically remember, but there was a reporter that was married to a corrupt Bush official); having been INDICTED (e.g. Libby, DeLay, Oliver North); or just being plain stupid (e.g. Tucker Carlson).
MR Bill @ 10:
As most are ex politicos and assorted crooks, goes without saying that most need judging.
Truly Equal @ 12:
Its surprising how many MSM types are married to DC people, of course thats their sphere of work and play.
But yes would be nice to have a scrolling ticker tape detailing their connections under their name when they talk :)
You're right ferrofluid. All incumbents should go. The stench of Washington is all over them. Some of those guys have been there for 30 years. It doesn't matter whether it's a Demo or a Repug. That is why Obama is so appealing.
ConcernedCanuck @ 3:
I believe that when an official makes a false statement under color of authority it should be a misdemeanor for accidental unretracted false statements, and a felony for intentional false statements.
These are some fine suggestions-- to be sure. But, the spineless, myopic, profit-wary carrion birds that make-up the MSM would never conform to it.
Telling the truth... Responsible press coverage... Accountability... Critical reflection on the issues...
These will never make the kinds of revenue that can be squeezed from parroting lines on cue and devoting hours to the lives of celebrity drug addicts.
what so many media critics and analysts fail to realize is that the uncontested repetition of talk radio makes a lot of this possible. that is where the propaganda groundwork is done. the talk radio monopoly is where the propaganda is "catapulted", as bush said. limbaugh and hannity and crew lay out a smorgasbord of talking points for the lazy celebrity talking heads and paid propagandists can rely on later in the day or week. they know that by the time they repeat the points sent to them in faxes and emails, tens of millions across the country will have heard the same thing and accepted it as truth because it was said with mind numbing certitude over and over and over again, without challenge.
How do I join the punditocracy?
I got some schoolin'.
Or would my tendency to make fart jokes disqualify me?
Oops.
ferrofluid (Obama 08) @ 7:
It all seems to be one big buddy system, where most pundits ARE or were part of the political system. Just like the election system. Seems even where I live, every election has the exact same election "team" no matter who is running for what party. US politics is the same. Who has been involved in the US election campaigns so far? The same hacks that have been there for years. They never leave, regardless what they do. I agree though that some sort of ombudsman system would be a fantastic idea. Who would enforce it though?
And who's going to appoint the watchdogs ? The government ? You'll immediately have a rebellion initiated by the right concerning partisanship, bureaucracy and free speech .
Try doing something simple for a change, like RESTORING THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE . If Fox sends out a chicken hawk to promote BS, then they have to follow it with someone sane to tell the truth . It worked fine until Reagan tossed it .
John: You're behind the times -- you still believe that the media are there to serve the public interest when their only current allegiances are to their corporate masters and their status in the social pecking order. Robert Greenwald said it best: it's a race to the bottom and Fox News is winning it. Nothing short of a complete overhaul would work now since the vast majority of those currently peopling the media have their values and priorities (and moral compasses, for that matter) completely backwards. People like Bill O'Reilly get awards, for Christ's sake. The current system is either irredeemable or practically so.
A la carte for cable viewers. If all the trash channels that people are forced to buy are weeded out by the viewing public you just might see better programming and more reliable news programs.
I haven't watched the tv in months. Yet if I try to drop my cable fees, I have to pay extra for my high-speed internet fees. They got ya by the short ones.
Or, have commercial free tv so that corporate dollars don't influence what people are paid to say.
Could we the people pass out the punishment? There should be a committee made up of individuals from each state. Could meet once a month, be given free air time for one week to expose the liars. Then the public vote as to what the punishment should be.
That email chain is with John KING of CNN, not John Roberts. Otherwise - nice post.
My suggestion: Stop hiring pundits. Put some of those resources into actual reporting.
All forms of media claiming to report non-fiction should be forced - by law - to issue corrections in the next issue/ program of any information that has been proven false.
Exactly what the criteria is for proof must be specifically laid down in such a way that when met, any failure to issue the correction should be met with an equally specific punishment, e.g. fines, public condemnation, removal of status as purveyor of NON-fiction, etc.
To this day it simply astounds me that people can say ANYTHING on TV and not be held accountable unless it offends one constituency or another through prejudice.
If any one proposal could change the entire framework of politics, this would be it.
24 Involved Says: Could we the people pass out the punishment? There should be a committee made up of individuals from each state. Could meet once a month, be given free air time for one week to expose the liars. Then the public vote as to what the punishment should be.
We could do it Texan style
Paddlin' in the courtrooms.
Why is it that all the networks have exactly the same stories each and every day? If that is not a conspiracy, it is a rolling coincidence with a probability approaching null.
6) Whenever Bill O is wrong he gets docked 1 falafel.
7) Whenever Ann Coulter is wrong she's forced to eat something followed up with a thump on her adams apple.
8) Whenever Rush is wrong he's forced to go 1 day without drugs or Viagra
9) Whenever Chris Wallace is wrong he's forced to watch 60 Minutes to see how a respected and real journalist, his father, does his job honorably and accurately.
10) Whenever Tweety is wrong someone yells "HA!" in his ear 10 times
11) Whenever David Brooks or Kristol Meth are wrong they each get whacked upside the head 5 times with a rolled up Sunday edition of the New York Times.
6) if a media outlet is not in compliance with the pundit punishment, then cable broadcasters or TV stations have the right to block the signal whenever that pundit comes on TV, much like a 5-second rule for live broadcasts.
Those are some good ideas. It's time for major media reform, many others are talking about the same things.
Michael Parenti on the Media
Part 1
Scathing, as it should be.
Michael Parenti on the Media
Part 2
Scathing, as it should be.
Start with a pre-pundit rule.... allow only eunuchs to be pundits.
Or... just waterboard them, and then make them do 100 hours of 'demeaning' community service.
Recall Colin Powell's son got the chairmanship of the FCC and once Murdoc got hold of Direct Tv--disappeared with a bag full of money.
All these networks operate with a FCC license--how about going after FCC to do their Job?
USA/Canada media is Zionist controlled. What else did you guys expect from them when the Invasions suited Israel. They do say they reported the turth but forget to tell--we hide the sh!t in the back pages in small print.
ferrofluid (Obama 08) @ 7:
Make that bosses only please. And that's why in the end 'holding them accountable....' and other such are pipe-dreams.'Pundits' are first, last and always propagandists. They say what they are
paid to say. Whether what they say is the lie intentional or the lie by mistake or just wrong is irrelevant.
Society doesn't need such and they should go the way of the Dodo.
I turned the tEEvEE 25 years ago. I recommend it.
Run a disclaimer whenever Bill Kristol speaks that says, "Seriously, this guy is always wrong. I don't even know why we continue to let him speak."
Don't request that their own organizations do anything. Not yet.
First, set up a graph/widget of some sort. Everyone starts at zero. For each prediction that's proven correct, the graph goes up a tick. Each time a prediction is proved wrong, the graph goes down a tick. Obviously, upward trend lines denote accuracy and trustworthiness. Downward trend lines denote the other.
The problem with such a graph, however, is how to denote statement and proven wrong. It doesn't follow a linear movement such as, say, stock prices.
So it may be that there's some other way to graph or chart out the accuracy of any given pundit. The thing to do is to show someone's predictions over time.
There's a state of not-yet-proven (i.e., Rachel Maddow: Hillary's going to take this all the way to the convention-- the convention hasn't happened yet, so this cannot be proven. Tho yesterday certainly is one significant indicator)
Then there's proven to be false, or proven to be true. (Dick Cheney: Greeted as liberators)
I suppose that you could do something like sparkline graph -- See http://sparkline.org/ for more. We could do a simple up/down graph to show good predictions and bad predictions. Line up a page of all the pundits with their sparklines, and let each sparkline get linked to their actual prediction and outcome.
Do a good, reputable job with that, with backup info, and publicize the effort, and let the media organizations and people themselves scramble to recover their bad reputations.
Focus on the data, and providing it well and meaningfully.
Ruthless People @ 30:
That's a great start...
I'm reminded of O'Hanlon's April 2003 article, Was The Strategy Brilliant?
http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2003/0409iraq_ohanlon.aspx
Riiiiiight.
And after all that is accomplished...
And then unicorns and magic will come back into the world, and we shall hear the music, the dancing and the laughter of the forest children - the elves....
There's accountability for doctors and brokers? Since when?
one way to fix this is to provide a searchable database of the major talk radio blowhards so it can be documented how often TV and print celebrities use the same talking points and framing that limbaugh and hannity used earlier in the day or week. plagiarizing those guys should be a sure ticket to mediocrity.
Edwin Hussein the appeaser @ 36:
Excuse me, waterboarding is torture, which is a felony. Just because we have running free in our government, numerous should be felons on that and a number of other counts, doesn't make it alright.
Until Bushco hijacked the the term, it was known as WATER TORTURE.
I continue to hope that their day of justice will come.
In the fall, many football writers track their predictions with weekly updates and I would love to see all the talking heads have to do the same.
FCC could institue rules requiring regular TV news to track and publish accuracy of pundit predictions. But do not think they have the power over cable without an act of Congress. Would expect big push back from MSM as they have no desire to be put on record. Opinion polls show MSM approval falling badly over past few years.
Removal of the punditocracy?
Net neutrality.
Cheap, easy broadband access for everyone.
A different mode of opinion expression other than mile long message board or comment sections. Even scanning for largely recommended threads is tedious. Might I suggest a more visual graphic format, one such as the visual thesaurus software.
Pundits exist due to monopolization of tv channels. Increase the amount of channels to the infinite net and watch the pundits vanish.
Pundits are simply courtiers (read "ass kissers", panegyrics, "yes-men", schmoozers) who exist only at the pleasure of those who wield power. They are incapable of acting in a disinterested -- i.e., self-restraint or lack of self-interest -- way and, consequently, their musings and opinions are of no use to the citizenry. Their mouthings merely add to the cacophony of propaganda, disinformation or mere opinion. Most are corporate shills.
P.D. @ 6:
Not just Faux.
All of them.
MSNBC is no better than Faux,
It just makes believe it is coming from the left.
In fact one day somehow I hit 26 instead of 25 (CNN and Faux next to each other)
and was puttering around doing stuff while listening and thinking that it was being delivered in such a straightforward manner, w/o opinions, snickers, or commentary that I stopped what I was doing and went to see WTF.
To my horror I realized I had Faux on.
Maybe it was an anomolie because I never put it on. I've checked in now and again since then but never have seen that guy again.
Perhaps I was momentarily in one of string theories alternate Universes.
LOL
ferrofluid (Obama 08) @ 14:
YES.
That really makes my blood boil, the marriage AND family connections/family connections. Mika B's father and brothers all involved in politics. very incestuous crowd.
Very good list but I think we have got to make a separation of the important, hard news that affects our lives politically, globally etc from the garbage and the local news.
We need a not for profit fourth estate covering political, corporate, international/global, energy news.
This primary cycle has made my blood boil with its inane and insane coverage.
And yes, the voters decide-but not really when you consider how the media covers the candidates. It was evident who the punditry wanted to see the in the end "horse race" on the Dem side. I think it was less clear on the Repub side because of Rudy/McCain. I think they had torn alliegences there.
The coverage then all but ignores the other candidates and defends itself by saying this is who people want to see... but people want to see them because this is who they keep touting.
I remember screaming at the TV because Biden, Edwards, Dodd etc. were just not getting any coverage... unless something negative came up.
Haircuts for instance.
So, no- the voter doesn't ultimately decide.
The political/corporate news has to be stripped from the corporate interests.
When the military industrial complex somehow has its hands in media through corporate interests we are going to have war. Its a money maker for them.
And, as someone said above when there are family/marriage connections between Washington and the media there is going to be subtle and not so subtle biases and "pushing."
Plus when personal enmity is allowed to take over and slant coverage with nary a dissenting comment from others-including watchdog groups- there is something very wrong.
Jonathon Alter said something on Verdict with Dan Abrams Friday night that had everyone's jaw on the floor. Won't go into it here.
When Progressives defend that kind of coverage as A-OK because they share the particular enmity it is both unjust and hypocritical. It becomes very obvious that the bias is wanted and enjoyed as long as it is seen as benefiting them and their positions.
I have no idea how that kind of attitude can be corrected.
I know I certainly love coverage that slams the idiot-king administration.
Wish we had more of it.Perhaps if we demanded it or shut off our televisions and boycotted products in protest there would be change.
Ruthless People @ 30:
12) Whenever Tucker Carlson is wrong he gets dragged into a bathroom stall by some gay guy (max. 8 times per day)
PS. LOL @ 10
Why shouldn't we require academic levels of sourcing? Fox News has done well (i.e. the superintendent blunder) not citing the origin of their reports. Accountability is key, and accountability has fallen well short of acceptable standards, as we've seen in a recent Crooks and Liars post concerning Fox News.
News sources should be considered trustworthy because reporters are sent to, ahem, report the facts. News should be news, commentary should be labeled thusly, from Olbermann to O'Reilly.
An Omsbudsman...like Deborah Howell of the Times...er, the Washington Post. Good idea, but when the deck is stacked like it is at the Post...well...where do we go from there?
As to a positive comment...hmm How about we keep score and then keep doing what we're doing. Yea, I know--but at least we know who's so full of it that their eyes are brown. I think Susan Kitchen has something. It's up to us to continue harassing those MSM sites who are wrong and perhaps we should set up a tracking mechanism and keep score and circulate that to other sites like Media Matters, etc. Contrast those who are correct (notice I didn't say right), with those who are wrong. Someone like Keith who would have a higher percentage of "correct" calls, versus those like William Kristol and rank them by percentage correct.
What becomes so very very annoying is when someone like O'Hanlon is given many and repeated "pundit slots" across American media despite his record of being wrong,not close,not even in the ball park or plain duplicity laden stupid.
Same can be said of Kristol,the Kagans,Ledeen and Goldberg. They never suffer for being wrong or just being plain too stupid to been asked for "their view" in first place.
So the question then becomes who is enabling these punditry charlatans to get page space and face time often and repeatedly across American media despite the terrible records they have for being wrong or plain stupid?
So it does get down to finding out where in the management levels of American media this state of affairs is getting green lighted and by which people?
It is plain to see that many of these so called "think tanks" that infest WashingtonDC ought to be outlawed and shut down as they plainly have little to do with thought and much to do with someones dogma that is fully funded no matter how wrong or dumb.
OT this may be but why is Barbara Starr given CNN 'Pentagon' beat?
Just within last few hours I heard and saw one of her CNN turnins for what CNN likes to call "the best political team on television".
At this point I do not need Barbara Starr laying out what the "next" American President will face at the Pentagon.
Especially when she flat out states "the war in Iraq IS getting better" or is doing some more CNN sanctioned 'ooga booga' over and about 'the threat' Iran presents.
According to who Babs? You?
I will take my Iraq and Iran guidance from some but not from Babs Starr at CNN.
Babs seems quite happy peddling Pentagon propaganda much of the time.
Who is her boss? What the hell CNN? "Best" pile of crap on TV is closer to the truth.
This is simply a great idea! Unchecked, these guys subscribe to the, "if you repeat something enough it becomes the truth," philosophy. Also, I really don't think the idea is that far fetched. The ombudsman idea is used at newspapers, no?
There should be a blog, at the very least a list, for discussion of the political leanings of all the pundits and talking heads.
Ombudsman???
According to David Brock's "The Right Wing Noise Machine", that's what the right wing used to blunt the left tendencies of the main stream media. They made so many complaints that the main stream media decided to set up ombudsmen, and guess who were set up as the ombudsmen? Right wing leaning people who squashed reporters who were reporting the truth. I would be careful about using right wing talking points to fix what doesn't need to be fixed.
just goes to show,, no matter how awesome your pedigree, your private prep school, your ivy league draft, your postgrad work. You still run the risk of being a really dumb shit. the fortunate part is you have a bunch of very well place friends/tools to help ignore your short comings as it might besmirch their high regard to have you seen as anything but the ideal.
yes I married into this,, and at times I wonder why..
pundits make money. controversial pundits make more money. your power is not in deciding their rules for them but in
A) not watching
B) making fun of them to discredit them in the same way they insidiously discredit their own political opponents, except you can do it in a more funny way, as political pundits are not funny people
C) using clips reported by the poor souls who can't help themselves and have to watch to aid in carrying out option B
seriously, the way they run their media outlets is really NONE of your business or my business. my business is whether or not i support them by watching or listening to their shows after they've shown a lack of interest in being accurate.
btw, if you're watching David Gregory, you are enabling this downward media spiral for another generation. i suggest you not do that, no matter how much you may like or want to like Rachel Maddow.
the answer is simple. stop watching. you can get your information from so many different sources that the TV talking head industry is entirely unnecessary. you know what they're going to say and you know the moronic spin they will put on it. if you keep watching, it's because you, like many Americans, actually simply enjoy the manufactured conflict. admitting it is the first step.
even with a la Carte options, which i think are a good idea, most people would probably still get these channels, and then whine about what's on them. correcting the record and mocking is good, whining and trying to institute rules and controls on them is bad. everyone is free to be as big of a fucking retard as they choose, and you're free to not watch.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Pundit ombudsman.
I have a simpler solution...
quit watching/listening to them.
It does wonders for a person's disposition.
6) Keep documenting and identifying all hoaxes and news distortion that affect and shape public policy
7) Keep exposing the liars
8) Prosecute all networks who engage in illegal government propaganda
examples:
Identify all pundits who knowingly and directly lie to the public:
example: Senate Report: Bush misused Iraq intelligence
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/iraq_usa_intelligence_dc
9) identify and expose all conflicts of interest for weekly public interest publications
examples:
John Ellis, Fox News
who is Bush's cousin - who was in charge of 2000 election projections for Fox News
Mary Matalin - advisor to Cheney and was a member of the White House Iraq Group (WHIG)
whose husband is James Carville - who puts garbage cans on his head
and monitor this type of hoax...
Alan Colmes, "Liberal" side on Fox's Hannity & Colmes
whose wife is Jocelyn Crowley who is the sister of Monica Crowley - a , Republican pundit who has also filled in for the liar Hannity
There is, or was, a means for holding the folks that employee these propagandists accountable. It is the FCC, which can revoke a network's franchise to use OUR airwaves if those networks fail to fulfill their obligations to serve the public's interests. Clearly, when these alleged news and analyses outlets devolve into propaganda organs which function only to manipulate Americans into supporting the propagandists' agendas, agendasthat ill-serve the public, it becomes a lot easier to demostrate that these networks have failed to meet their obligations to the public. It is also clear, that the FCC has become so corrupted that it is nothing more than a cathouse prostituting itself to to the very ones it is supposed to be regulating. Like the users of OUR airwaves,the FCC is also failing in it's obligations to the American people.
But this is something that President Obama can fix early on and easily, if he's sincere about defending and protecting the Constitution. Divestitures, return to the Fairness Doctrine, competition, citizen participation in oversight, all sorts of things. Were it my decision, I'd put a journalist who maintained stainless integrity during the Clinton and Bush administrations...Bill Moyers, Keith Olberman and others come to mind. They'd know what to do.
Right on Paul.... !
Ha! And once we get accountability from the pundits, then let's move on to the damn meteorologists!
With the rise of 24 hour news, and news in general becoming a "profit center" for major corporations, pundits have become a cheap way to to fill air time. The cost no more then the minimal production expenses and satellite time.
No longer do you have to research your topic, hire camera crews, travel to location, provide edit time, and be knowledgeable in the subject you are reporting on. You simply make a couple of calls, and bring in some "expert" on the subject you are covering.
You do not think the people who want to shape your opinion know this? In fact they depend on this. Why do you think all of these "think tanks" have all these people available all the time? The shame is that all of the MSM simply ignore this fact. Every time Bill Kristol is put on the air, he should have under his name "sponsored by Exxon Mobile, Coors Brewing Company, Northrupp Grumann, et al.
Maybe then people would start to question where there information is comming from.
ADDITION TO THE LIST OF STEPS:
Require a media outlet to justify (re)hiring a pundit that has been hit by the three-strikes rule. This way the pundits don't necessarily take ALL the onus, but media that relies on such inadequate information also must make statements on their practices as well.
I agree with checking for personal and financial conflicts of interest (e.g., the military experts shilling for Bush and selling their souls for defense contractors), AND with cutting back on pundits in areas where they really add nothing (experts in complicated fields, legimately independent opinions from retired generals) such as general political commentary. It's clear there are a great many more people here who know more about current issues than these knuckleheads. Does Kristol even know about the Internets?
No system would be perfect but it would be great if they at least recognized that accuracy and fairness are worthy goals and started off with what sounds reasonable, such as described above, and then adjusted in ways that make sense as they go along. And firing Glen Beck and Loud Dobbs.
He has the look of a kid in class worried his teacher is gonna call on him.
Ysbad@72 That's the look of someone who has to use the restroom and can't remember which numbers to use when asking to go. I have long thought the Pavlovs dog method would work great, but a rolled newspaper would work better if you place a stick inside it, once again I call dibs on getting to smack-em first. Their are a few that will need to be rocked to sleep, with a real rock, ie...brooks,kristol,limp-pud,bo, hmm- long list, this may take a while-CEO
First, since the news is considered a public service and is tied to networks use of the airwaves without cost, remove any news infotainment from public service time with the networks. If they sell advertising, then it is infotainment. Perhaps that will minimize the stories on Jesus/Mary/Hilter showing up on a Stain/Tortilla/Bundt Cake.
Second, consider going back to the League of Women Voters and other impartial groups for these questions. The individuals might not be impartial, but at least if they represent a group trying to be impartial, they might act accordingly.
Thirdly, when pundits blindly echo the key phrases spewed by the administration, identify them as either sock puppets or morons too stupid to be original.
How about making 'em wear hats. Red hat for bullshit artists, yellow for right sometimes, and green for right most of the time.
Accountability - What a concept!
I wrote about this back in January, when I proposed that punditry be handled more like the TV game show Jeopardy:
And I wrote about the PEP Squad (Perpetually Erroneous Pundits) back in February of 2007:
With ombudsmen like Daniel Okrent (yes, I know, public editor) and li'l Debbie Howell, the concept sort of falls apart.
Comments are closed on this entry