NationStates Jolt Archive

Gene Weingarten recently went through 24 hours of listening non-stop (kind of) to political pundits. His story is a truly horrifying one.
Link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/18/AR2008031802463.html?sub=AR) (If it asks for user name and password, use something from here (http://www.bugmenot.com/view/washingtonpost.com).)

In addition to being an interesting article, this did bring up a question which has been in the back of my mind since early 2007: has political forecasting become an end unto itself? There are obvious examples, talk radio is one, but it seems there are plenty of subtler instances of someone deriving an income based on what they think about an election or candidate. So my question is: am I right, and if I am, is this a good or bad thing (or neither)?

I think you are right without question. I don't think it is a good thing though, because it is becoming a world of opinions and not facts...or worse one of opinions posing as facts.

The article gave me vertigo....I live with a political pundit addict. Is there a 12-step program somewhere for addicts? :(

Edit: Would that qualify as a subtler instance of deriving an income from it? Pundit addict counselor?

The article gave me vertigo....I live with a political pundit addict. Is there a 12-step program somewhere for addicts? :(

Don't know about 12-step but there always is 12 gauge.

Don't know about 12-step but there always is 12 gauge.

;) I like it.

Great article.

And a pretty disturbing one. Michael Savage isn't a person.

Great article.

And a pretty disturbing one. Michael Savage isn't a person.

After reading about Michael Savage, I've finally realized he is the incarnation of everything wrong with America. He belongs in a story like The Pilgrim's Progress or a similar allegorical tale. He does not belong in the real world.

I think my mental Spam filter blocks that sort of thing.