General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums"Sucking all the air out of the room." The endless repetition of cliches by pundits
Listening to the "journalists" and other pundits "analyze" the Trump Surge encapsulates something that is really annoying about the media. This is just the example pf the day, but it happens with almost everything.
Over the last couple of weeks, almost every news show and many print writers has featured the Usual Gang of Idiots (apologies to Mad magazine) summerizing the Trumpster's role as "sucking the air out of the room." Or, if they want to add variety, "sucking the oxygen out of the room."
God forbid they should actually go down even deeper than that and use some creative thinking or offer an alternative perspective.
But at least if they are going to parrot the same ol crapola, they could earn a little of the money they're paid by utilizing a modicum of creativity.
These are supposed to be professionals whose role is to analyze and interpret events in an intelligent and informed manner. So why the hell, I ask, can't they at least come up with different phrases? Why does every single one of them seem compelled to use the same cliche that all of their peers use? And beat it to death?
I wish my memory was better, so I could provide additional examples. But it happens every time. They glom onto some catchphrase to describe a situation, and instantly that same catchphrase is repeated endlessly, like a virus.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)They think we are supposed to pay attention to them, not The Donald. And they use cliches a lot because they think they know what they mean, and it's safe since it asserts nothing.
caraher
(6,279 posts)Consider this the warning label regarding the depth of their analyses...
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)Coincidence?
Armstead
(47,803 posts)RKP5637
(67,112 posts)To me, it is consistently annoying when journalists attempt to discuss and enlighten one on any event. I can deal OK with news anchors that just report the news with no embellishments, but supposedly enlightened and intellectual journalists babbling/writing drives me up the wall. All of them are not this way, but often many are ...
djean111
(14,255 posts)I don't think a whole lot of liberals/progressives do, which may be why we don't get so much air time. I don't see what value talking TV heads add, after all, it is just one person's opinion over another. I guess pundits are useful for gauging support during campaigns, but unless they have real breaking news, I don't care about them. I like to read different opinions, but depending on who pays them and what their own prejudices are, there is a lot of crap out there.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I think it's a useful function of media to help us put events into perspective.
But they sure do a shitty job of it.
SamKnause
(13,114 posts)They get their scripts and proceed to be parrots with their
talking points.
There are a lot of examples on YouTube showing how apt
they are at parroting.
They are any but professional.
Independent media is the only way to get the news.
fredamae
(4,458 posts)"They glom onto some catchphrase to describe a situation, and instantly that same catchphrase is repeated endlessly, like a virus."
as the recognition of a corporate media running smoothly because it Is the Script from which "they" (actors=journalist's) read.
These folks (actors=journalist's) earn so much they're in the 1%.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)spouting approved groupthink. I remember a Morning Joe regular who, after a week or two of it, finally had too much an obvious lie the press had been enjoying repeating about Hillary Clinton during the 2008 campaign (including the Joe crew) and said it was a lie -- poof! Gone. Talking head career over.
Groupthink is the most satisfying and beneficial socially too, since their social strata these days include the very politicians, influence buyers and sellers, and other functionaries they discuss. A way-too-cozy insider mix.
I often wonder what they're saying in the green rooms before they come out to perform on TV, but to guess at that I have to be reading those whose purpose is to inform.
Ex- discussion show junkie
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)not at all better, imo.