Deep Hate For The Cheap Thug Trump Is The Ground Of This Election, Ladies And Gentlemen

[The Magistrate]

23. Thank You, Sir

Last edited Wed Apr 15, 2020, 12:23 PM - Edit history (1)

It seems to me the failing begins with the pundit's claim to superior knowledge.

There are two ways to convincingly display superior knowledge.

One is to make an accurate prediction.

The other is to see some reason for an event which lies beneath its surface.

The great flaw of the first is that it cultivates a detachment from the events, and inculcates a spirit similar to that of someone who follows sporting contests, without necessarily being a great fan of a particular team. Into the bargain, prior to an event, one may most easily show superior knowledge to one's audience by joining in a consensus view, and sharing the predictions of other experts. Thus errors compound, and a herd mentality is formed. Pundits pay no penalty for being wrong in their predictions (after all, who can really know the future?), and sustain their popularity by predicting things a certain audience segment wants to hear. That audience will continue to heed them regardless of whether their predictions prove out or not.

The great flaw of the second is twofold. There often are no deep underlying causes few people can discern. It is frequently the case, in dealing with people en mass that the least complex, most apparently surface factors, actually are what is going on. Probing 'beneath' these is not necessary. Further, when one does probe beneath the surface, expertise cannot be demonstrated if what one detects is pretty much what anyone would see in the situation. The underlying factors the pundit detects must be unique, they must be things no ordinary person would ever think of, that only an expert could discern. Such a search for novelty is unlikely to produce an accurate analysis.

Corrupting the matter further is the perceived need to be balanced in coverage of contenders, and the ludicrous idea of what constitutes balance. Two old saws from the days of 'Front Page' style newspapermen point the problem well....

"If your mother says she loves you --- check it out."

"If someone says it's raining and someone says it isn't, a journalist's job isn't to report that opinions differ, but to step outside and see if he gets wet."