Position Paper 1: Political Pundits

Rooted in Truth or Conspiracy? Whatever it takes to stir the pot. 

If I had a nickel for every time that Professor Reppert mentioned the 'talking heads' on cable news, I would probably have enough money to get a drink and a package of M&M's from the vending machine. If I had to know what a 'talking head' was to cash-in those nickels, I would have to give the money back.

As it turns out, a 'talking head' is simply a reference to the way political commentators are presented on the screen (with a zoomed in camera angle where they are seen from the chest and up). If I had figured out this definition earlier, I probably could have engaged a bit more in class these past few years but that is not really important.

What is the reliability of the predictions that these political pundits make? Where do their predictions come from and are they rooted in factual evidence or in conspiracy? How do they maintain a following for simply giving opinions? I will do my best to find an answer to these questions.

I believe that I can answer that final question first. People will listen to supposed 'experts' about anything. Take fantasy football for example: a game of football is nearly unpredictable before it is played, a player's performance much less predictable than that. You may be able to predict very unspecific scenarios in a game. For example, it isn't far-fetched to say that Patrick Mahomes, the reigning MVP in the NFL, is likely to score one-to-two touchdown each game. Sometimes it may happen and sometimes it may not, but statistics and previous performance play a major factor in the predictive process for the 'professional' analysts.

However, the primary difference between the fantasy football gurus and the political pundits of the nightly news is the purpose of the prediction. In the football world, making predictions can be used for making bets, setting up a lineup in fantasy football, or simply having an expectation of the game. In political commentary, these predictions are used as platforms for debate between people of opposing viewpoints.

Let's say that the President (any President) is going to pass an executive order on Wednesday. The political pundits will be spinning in their chairs the entire week building up to the day of the signing. They will host debates about what this order means for the future of their party, for their platform, and for the American people. They will take guesses at what the order will do for the stock market, what it means for balancing the budget, and maybe even how the order will effect Sunday Night Football. Yes, these predictions may be loosely rooted in truth (speaking about the executive order) but the effects incite hysteria and fear. The right and left use these predictions to promote the platform that they stand on and explain why any law or bill is good or bad based on the effect it will have on their standing, rather than any actual effects on the country. The causality and results of a given act of government is arbitrary and the moral ambiguity is blurred in the eyes of a person with an agenda.

There is some usefulness that comes with predictive journalism. Following the death of George Floyd, very few could have predicted that nationwide protests would begin, especially during a pandemic. However, any person could predict that demonstrations would begin following the shooting of Jacob Blake in Wisconsin and the aftermath that occurred in Kenosha. Knowing what would likely happen, journalists could be prepared for new stories to look for, important sites to report at, and more people to interview. Concerning the pundits who sit in D.C., they likely sat around and talked about how voting would be affected.

Since we are discussing predictions and accusations with very little 'spine', I will discuss Alex Jones (like I am sure many of my classmates will) very quickly. Alex Jones is a political commentator and conspiracy theorist as the host of The Alex Jones Show. You have likely seen or heard of some comments he has made in the past as they usually circulate social media, rather due to the controversial nature of his comment or just how silly it sounds. Jones notoriously claimed that the United States government were creating 'gay bombs' to turn people in to homosexuals and that the government was putting 'gay chemicals' in water reservoirs to make frogs homosexual. In a famous quote from 2017, Jones said, "The majority of frogs in most areas of the United States are now gay."

This is all conspiracy of course, but these outrageous claims are based on public information and facts. In 1994, the government did begin research for a weapon that would turn enemy combatants into homosexuals. The project was shelved but it did exist. There is also a pesticide called atrazine which is one of the most widely used pesticides in the world. It has been proven that the use of atrazine on male frogs can turn them into females. I am not saying to believe every word the man speaks, but know that he usually has some kind of interesting source.

I am not a fan of discussing politics, but I understand the importance of understanding one-another in a society. Conflict is leagues away from resolution and I find that the people on TV would rather argue about what is right and wrong from a comfortable chair than actually find a way of fixing the problems they talk about.

And that's all I have to say about that.