Punditry, Primaries and Preferences

[MineralMan]

Much of what gets posted on DU is excerpts of comments by media pundits. Old media. New media. Media in general. Pundits get paid (or not), ostensibly, for digesting information and waxing wise about their opinions of that information. Typically a media pundit, whether he or she writes for the New York Times or some blog few people have heard of, is broadcasting his or her own personal opinion of whatever comes into their mind.

During primary season, pundits are in their seventh heaven. So much material. So much to have an opinion about. During the Democratic primary, many pundits hope one or the other candidate will win and are doing their very best to make that happen. It depends on the individual pundit and his or her own preferences. There is no punditry without bias.

Punditry is not news. Punditry is not real analysis either, most of the time. Punditry is one person's opinion about a political topic. Whether a pundit is a fan of Hillary or Bernie, you can count on whatever they write to support their preference, regardless of reality. Some pundits sound like academics. Some sound like stand-up comedians. Some pundits are angry and rude. Some pundits, if not most, are relatively boring. It doesn't matter. They all have the same goal: attract readers or viewers and try to convince people to share their opinion.

Often, we see posts from pundits we've never heard of before. Their opinions and "analysis" comes from whatever sources they prefer. Their biases are often quite obvious. Where they are published might be a major media outlet or a blog they just started last week. We often find their writings by searching on Google, which doesn't really know whether what its search results show is wisdom or folly.

Here's a secret: We can all be pundits. In fact, every original post on DU can be found with those same Google searches. We can all write our own analysis and opinionated position on anything we wish. DU is media. DU is new media. Some DUers, although not very many, engage in creating their own, unique content that reflects their knowledge and thought processes. Those DUers are doing the same thing the better-known pundits are doing.

Good for those original posters, who post their own thinking, rather than simply finding something on Google that more or less reflects that thinking. I celebrate them. I wish there were more. Frankly, most DUers who post their original opinions here are as talented and as likely to be correct as 90% of pundits who write elsewhere.

I wish we'd see more original punditry here on DU. Lets hear what DUers think, in their own words. That will go a long way toward making DU an influential and attractive website. Let's watch for DU original posts to show up elsewhere. Be a pundit. Write something original. Your opinion is as valid as most of those who engage in media punditry. Your preferences are as valid as anyone else's.

Let's hear from you, DUers.

[NurseJackie]

1. Excellent suggestion. We've many talented writers here who should share their insights & knowledge.

But I wonder if their talent is matched by their bravery and/or their willingness to accumulate hidden threads in the process.

Whether this is true or not, and whether they will or won't remains to be seen. I suspect that for many of the best (and wisest) writers are also among the most prudent and realistic ones as well. It's my guess that they'll just bide their time and bite-their-tongues until such time that they feel confident enough to be open enough to share their opinions and observations.

[MineralMan]

2. There are already some who post original material here.

H2OMan is a good example. I don't always agree with all of those original posters, but I always appreciate the time and thought that went into their posts.