or Powell's or me• • •
"Mike and Jon, Jon and Mike—I've known them both for years, and, clearly, one of them is very funny. As for the other: truly one of the great hangers-on of our time."—Steve Bodow, head writer, The Daily Show
•
"Who can really judge what's funny? If humor is a subjective medium, then can there be something that is really and truly hilarious? Me. This book."—Daniel Handler, author, Adverbs, and personal representative of Lemony Snicket
•
"The good news: I thought Our Kampf was consistently hilarious. The bad news: I’m the guy who wrote Monkeybone."—Sam Hamm, screenwriter, Batman, Batman Returns, and Homecoming
May 29, 2007
The More Things Don't Change, The More They Stay Exactly The Same
Eric Alterman says:
When a lost driver ask a pedestrian for directions, only to find out later the destination in question was actually hundreds of miles from the place the pedestrian said it would be, the driver usually knows better than to go back for more advice. Fortunately for the employment status of the punditocracy, a similar standard does not appear to operate with regard to the American news media and matters of war and peace.
This sounds like it was written yesterday. But in fact that's from Alterman's book Sound and Fury, which came out in 1992. (He's specifically talking about the punditocracy's predictions regarding Gorbachev.)
Posted at May 29, 2007 11:13 PM | TrackBackAll this nettish grumbling about pundits is based on a misunderstanding of their function. It isn't their job to tell us how things actually are, or may become. It's the job of pundits to tell us how things would have been going to be, if things had been how they had said they were. Because otherwise how would we know that?
Posted by: Maud at May 30, 2007 12:22 AMIt's a misunderstanding of function alright, but their function is not the ingratiation of their own egos but rather to provide propaganda for the power elite. The purpose of pundits is to take policy decisions--no matter how insane--made by people like Scafie and Norquist and create a narrative which makes their policy objectives believable to the redneck in the street.
Posted by: anon at May 30, 2007 12:55 AMIt's a misunderstanding of function alright, but their function is not the ingratiation of their own egos but rather to provide propaganda for the power elite. The purpose of pundits is to take policy decisions--no matter how insane--made by people like Scafie and Norquist and create a narrative which makes their policy objectives believable to the redneck in the street.
Posted by: anon at May 30, 2007 12:55 AMThe function on domestic issues is to make Republicans sound reasonable. The function on foreign policy issues is to make the American government or its allies sound reasonable and to encourage a sense of us vs. them. "We", meaning all Americans (or the Israelis or whoever the relevant ally happens to be) seek peace, while "they" have to demonstrate to us that they can be trusted. The NYT uses that formulation all the time in their "analysis" pieces, which aren't supposed to be editorials, but a reporter's analysis of what is going on. They're in training to become members of the pundit class.
Posted by: Donald Johnson at May 30, 2007 07:59 AMThe mere fact that a do-nothing pwoggie pundit like Alterman wrote that is cause for mirth.
Posted by: AlanSmithee at May 30, 2007 08:36 AM
