Pundits: Central to democracy, or partisan spewers of opinion who destroy trust
Lippmann, a Pulitzer Prize winner, wrote a syndicated column on national and international affairs.
- Lippmann, a Pulitzer Prize winner, wrote a syndicated column on national and international affairs.
- He advocated a philosophy in which honest reflection on common experiences would lift citizens out of their parochial worldviews.
- A pundit is someone who offers commentary in the media on a particular subject area.
- I want to suggest that pundits support democracy when their combat is driven by ideas rather than tribal identities.
Pundit proliferation
- Mass media in the 1950s featured radio hosts who delighted in browbeating callers.
- The rise of a television pundit class in the 1960s established a new type of celebrity, thanks largely to William F. Buckley’s “Firing Line,” which ran from 1966 to 1999.
- Lippmann’s vision of the pundit as public intellectual sought to preserve “the traditions of civility” during the advent of broadcast media.
- The aspiration was hardly a source of inspiration for “The McLaughlin Group” and other shout shows launched in the 1980s.
Incentives to punch up
- Columnists cannot replicate the visceral experience of the shout shows, although the ability of readers to graze online heightens the incentive to punch up punditry.
- The term “pundit,” though, is derived from the Sanskrit word “pandrita,” meaning “learned.” Many pundits are not trained in journalism.
- As a scholar of political communication, I believe punditry is likely to become more specialized in catering to particular interests.
- This trend works against Lippmann’s principle of commentary that offers reflection on common experiences.
Pundits and democracy
- Commentary that oversimplifies policy disagreement erodes the trust that citizens have for each other, especially when opponents are belittled.
- Pundits contribute to democratic backsliding when they cultivate dystopian views of politics.
- The best example is the relentless negativity that characterized commentary on presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump in 2016.
- The authors reported that “political differences of opinion do not, in and of themselves, harm attitudes toward politics and politicians.
Supporting democracy
- Many political theorists insist that there is democratic value in heated commentary that calls out injustice.
- Media scholar Patricia Rossini suggests that in evaluating political expression, people should be concerned not so much about tone as tolerance.
- Audiences should also keep in mind the incentives of pundits, especially when commentators use their platforms to nurture relationships with politicians who undermine democracy.
Mike McDevitt does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.