Glen Greenwald has echoed my sentiment, or perhaps I echo his. Anyway, here is a quote and a link:
"As Matt Yglesias pointed out several months ago, most Americans are too busy or distracted to pay close attention to political matters, and therefore rely upon trusted pundits to alert them if things are going terribly awry or if our political leaders have become genuinely radical and threatening. Broder (like most Beltway pundits) failed profoundly in that responsibility, and plainly did the opposite: helped to build up George Bush's image as the Strong and Powerful Leader whose flaws were merely standard and outweighed by his powerful leadership. "
Glen's full post here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I disgree on this one. Very few Americans turn to the editorial pages to read the likes of Broder, so their influence is small.
Also, I don't think that the pundits have a "responsibility": they are just saying any old thing they want.
I agree with you that most people do not read the editorial pages. I do, however think that beltway bundits have historically influenced much of the opinion that trickles out to the general population in dribs and drabs. I think pundits create a way to think about what is going on. As the philosopher Kant says, "a manifold." Perhaps I am saying they frame the issue for the people who report the news etc. In this way I think what they say can at times be quite meaningful. Perhaps this is more true of some issues or times than others. I guess it could depend on how what they say resonates.
Post a Comment