"Sucking all the air out of the room." The endless repetition of cliches by pundits

[Armstead]

Listening to the "journalists" and other pundits "analyze" the Trump Surge encapsulates something that is really annoying about the media. This is just the example pf the day, but it happens with almost everything.

Over the last couple of weeks, almost every news show and many print writers has featured the Usual Gang of Idiots (apologies to Mad magazine) summerizing the Trumpster's role as "sucking the air out of the room." Or, if they want to add variety, "sucking the oxygen out of the room."

God forbid they should actually go down even deeper than that and use some creative thinking or offer an alternative perspective.

But at least if they are going to parrot the same ol crapola, they could earn a little of the money they're paid by utilizing a modicum of creativity.

These are supposed to be professionals whose role is to analyze and interpret events in an intelligent and informed manner. So why the hell, I ask, can't they at least come up with different phrases? Why does every single one of them seem compelled to use the same cliche that all of their peers use? And beat it to death?

I wish my memory was better, so I could provide additional examples. But it happens every time. They glom onto some catchphrase to describe a situation, and instantly that same catchphrase is repeated endlessly, like a virus.

[bemildred]

1. It means he is hogging all the attention, they hate that, the talking heads.

They think we are supposed to pay attention to them, not The Donald. And they use cliches a lot because they think they know what they mean, and it's safe since it asserts nothing.

[caraher]

2. Are you throwing all pundits under the bus?

Consider this the warning label regarding the depth of their analyses...

[DetlefK]

3. Start at the 2-minute-mark.

Coincidence?

[Armstead]

9. LOL, that video certainly pushes the envelope of analysis

[RKP5637]

4. Many journalists today are damn fools and often only get rankings by how irritating they can be.

To me, it is consistently annoying when journalists attempt to discuss and enlighten one on any event. I can deal OK with news anchors that just report the news with no embellishments, but supposedly enlightened and intellectual journalists babbling/writing drives me up the wall. All of them are not this way, but often many are ...

[djean111]

5. I just do not listen to pundits. Maybe it is my ADHD. Or contempt for so many. One of those.

I don't think a whole lot of liberals/progressives do, which may be why we don't get so much air time. I don't see what value talking TV heads add, after all, it is just one person's opinion over another. I guess pundits are useful for gauging support during campaigns, but unless they have real breaking news, I don't care about them. I like to read different opinions, but depending on who pays them and what their own prejudices are, there is a lot of crap out there.

[Armstead]

11. They do have an important role, in theory

I think it's a useful function of media to help us put events into perspective.

But they sure do a shitty job of it.

[SamKnause]

6. Main stream media is a joke.

They get their scripts and proceed to be parrots with their

talking points.

There are a lot of examples on YouTube showing how apt

they are at parroting.

They are any but professional.

Independent media is the only way to get the news.

[fredamae]

7. Perhaps it is as simple

"They glom onto some catchphrase to describe a situation, and instantly that same catchphrase is repeated endlessly, like a virus."

as the recognition of a corporate media running smoothly because it Is the Script from which "they" (actors=journalist's) read.

These folks (actors=journalist's) earn so much they're in the 1%.

[Hortensis]

8. But their goal is to be an insider talking head, and the secure position is middle of the pack,

spouting approved groupthink. I remember a Morning Joe regular who, after a week or two of it, finally had too much an obvious lie the press had been enjoying repeating about Hillary Clinton during the 2008 campaign (including the Joe crew) and said it was a lie -- poof! Gone. Talking head career over.

Groupthink is the most satisfying and beneficial socially too, since their social strata these days include the very politicians, influence buyers and sellers, and other functionaries they discuss. A way-too-cozy insider mix.

I often wonder what they're saying in the green rooms before they come out to perform on TV, but to guess at that I have to be reading those whose purpose is to inform.

Ex- discussion show junkie

[HereSince1628]

10. The alternatives often include analogies to sports or military campaigns...

not at all better, imo.