From Andrew Sullivan, a link to an article by Daniel Libit on the corruption of the term "strategist" by television, as they "anoint" vague policy workers as Democratic or Republican strategists. Libit is appalled by the elevation of "peripheral" people to the status of insiders, as viewers are led to believe that these no-names were embedded deep within campaigns.
Anyone who has had to sit through any of the appearances this campaign of bona fide strategists and insiders James Carville and Mary Matalin know what I'm talking about (and have before); their fabled experience doesn't keep them from being trite, predictable, and boring.
Let's start to worry about the quality of the commentary we get, let's evaluate the usefulness and the wisdom of what people are saying, let's not worry about what someone is called. I would rather hear someone who is an expert in the field under discussion than the endless parade of insiders who talk "inside baseball."
...the fractured nature of cable news time, particularly midday, allows almost anyone who’s articulate and politically inclined to act like a campaign insider. Rollins, who often appears on CNN himself, blames the cable news networks for “dumbing down” good analysis in the name of multitudinous voices. “I think the networks are idiotic in that they have capable people who have been around, but they want 12 panels,” he says. Independent TV analyst Andrew Tyndall thinks the “mislabeling” is also the product of the media’s unyielding “bid to seem as though they are inside the horse race.”Please. Let's not confuse analyst with analysis, strategist with strategy. While I don't care for the aggrandizement of people who appear on news shows, let's not pretend that there is some sanctified category of envelope-lickers who have more of a claim on thought than other people. After all, I live in a city in which the PBS television station gives a regular commentary slot to idiot shock jock Mancow.
Anyone who has had to sit through any of the appearances this campaign of bona fide strategists and insiders James Carville and Mary Matalin know what I'm talking about (and have before); their fabled experience doesn't keep them from being trite, predictable, and boring.
Let's start to worry about the quality of the commentary we get, let's evaluate the usefulness and the wisdom of what people are saying, let's not worry about what someone is called. I would rather hear someone who is an expert in the field under discussion than the endless parade of insiders who talk "inside baseball."
No comments:
Post a Comment