this post was submitted on 02 Sep 2024

12 points (92.9% liked)

Ask Lemmy

26666 readers

1501 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions

Rules: (interactive)

1) Be nice and; have fun

Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them

2) All posts must end with a '?'

This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?

3) No spam

Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.

4) NSFW is okay, within reason

Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected]. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].

5) This is not a support community.

It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.

Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

In a world where every person is free to share their opinion directly to a mass audience; do we really need pundits anymore? (lemmy.world)

submitted 2 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

11 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 11 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

The importance of pundits has been diminishing for years now for several reasons:

The world is increasingly complex and opaque. If someone claims to know what's really going on, don't believe them.

A pundit's main talent these days is to be comfortable in front of a camera, and to be able to pontificate at length. This is only loosely connected with any actual expertise or experience they may have.

A successful pundit needs to be aware of the hosting organization's biases. If they go on a mainstream cable network with an anti-corporate message they will be swiftly shitcanned.

News orgs have been slashing budgets for overseas, on the ground reporting so we get pundits who have access to the same information as everyone else.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

In a world where every person is free to share their opinion directly to a mass audience, *we need trusted experts in various fields more than ever.

No, they're not necessarily going to be concentrated only in traditional media, but if I'm looking something up real quick, I'm more likely to trust some random author on a real news site than some random author on social media. Maybe I'd still get wrong information sometimes, but the odds are better.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I'll be honest when I read the question I was like "did we ever need them" but reading the comments it all makes sense. I think part of the reason I didn't see the point is so many pundits I see online just seem to be casual googlers who think reading a bit makes them an expert on the field. You put some random guy who talks with confidence in front of a camera and they can actually build an audience despite being crocked full of sh*t. 100% agree we need actual veteran experts in fields to share objective truth to audiences who've inundated with blatant lies.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Part of it is that the question is phrased to make you react that way. By using "pundits" as opposed to "commentators" or "analysts", it primes you to think about someone at Fox (or, these days, Youtube) pounding on a table while screaming about immigrants, as opposed to a respected individual evenhandedly explaining the complexities of a nuanced issue.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

From 1913 Webster's, to show how "far" we've come:

Pun"dit (?), n. [Hind. pandit, Skr. pandita a learned man.] A learned man; a teacher; esp., a Brahman versed in the Sanskrit language, and in the science, laws, and religion of the Hindoos; in Cashmere, any clerk or native official. [Written also pandit.] [India]

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

I did not know that is where it came from, but that's neat (if a touch depressing). Thank you for that info. Fascinating how languages shift.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

We need experts that are knowledgeable on issues who can put them in context for lay readers.

In the past, those were often beat reporters, but academics can fit that role too.

With the collapse of traditional media ~~hegemonies~~ companies we've lost beat reporters, so we have to rely on third party experts. Of course, there are problems with that: if they're owned by bad actors, then they can spread misleading narratives.

I'm not sure who fills that role now. Whoever can tweet the most convincingly at journalists? Whoever makes the sexiest YouTube explainer?

😂^(we're screwed)

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

I don't think the bad actors are coming from online. The bad actors are the ones who call themselves news and amplify a message bought and paid for by corporations. They then say, it's only editorializing. The news happens only from '6:15-6:17.'

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Agreed - traditional media and online commentary both suffer from this problem.

We need a way for beat reporters to get paid for their work. Sadly that doesn't really exist right now.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I wouldn't say they don't exist. Podcasting is a legitimate platform.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Yes, similar to the web of trust, there exists a web of trust for people based on reputation. Journalistic integrity, openness, scrutiny; these are just a few of the things that go away when experts go away.

People who dedicate their lives to truth should be recognized as such, and those who lie should be recognized as well. Outsourcing your information gathering to "randoms" just means that you will be swayed by whoever can afford the best bot farm.

And if you think you are unswayable, you are the perfect target.

Follow those who express curiosity, welcome questioning, and conduct themselves in good faith. It's an iterative process, you don't have to resolve it in a day.