Why Do the TV Pundits Who Got It Wrong on Iraq Keep Getting Invited Back for More?
I had a conversation with a group of friends the other day about the so-called liberal media and I aksed them to name four liberals with household names. Four liberals who have the same reach as O'Reilly, Hannity, Savage, Limbaugh, etc... They came up with Keith Olbermann (600,000 viewers) and Jon Stewart, a comedian.
It's a sad time in journalism when two of the best TV news shows are on a comedy channel.
Here's a good piece by Radar's Jebediah Reed about the rich pundits who were wrong, including Thomas Friedman and Fareed Zakaria, and the poor pundits who were right, including Robert Scheer and Scott Ritter:
A few years ago, David Brooks, New York Times columnist and media pundit extraordinaire, penned a love letter to the idea of meritocracy. It is "a way of life that emphasizes ... perpetual improvement, and permanent exertion," he effused, and is essential to America's dynamism and character. Fellow glorifiers of meritocracy have noted that our society is superior to nepotistic backwaters like Krygystan or France because we assign the most important jobs based on excellence. This makes us less prone to stagnancy or, worse yet, hideous national clusterfucks like fighting unwinnable wars for reasons nobody understands.
At Radar we are devoted re-readers of the Brooks oeuvre and were struck by this particular column. It raised interesting questions. Noticing our nation is stuck in an unwinnable war (or two), we wondered if America hasn't stumbled off the meritocratic path. More specifically, since political pundits like Brooks play such a central role in our national decision-making process, maybe something is amiss in the world of punditry. Are the incentives well-aligned? Surely those who warned us not to invade Iraq have been recognized and rewarded, and those who pushed for this disaster face tattered credibility and waning career prospects. Could it be any other way in America?
Noticing our nation is stuck in an unwinnable war, 'Radar' wondered: Is something amiss in the world of punditry?So we selected the four pundits who were in our judgment the most influentially and disturbingly misguided in their pro-war arguments and the four who were most prescient and forceful in their opposition. (Because conservative pundits generally acted as a well-coordinated bloc, more or less interchangeable, all four of our hawks are moderates or liberals who might have been important opponents of the war—so, sadly, we are not able to revisit Brooks's eloquent and thoroughly meritless prognostications.)
Then we did a career check ... and found that something is rotten in the fourth estate.