»» Columnists

Partisan Pundit Donna Brazile: Let’s Get Partisan Pundits Off The Airwaves

by Frances Martel | 4:10 pm, May 11th, 2010

» 13 comments

Every year, a crack team of curmudgeons gets together at the Washington Post to point out ten extremely important and/or useful things in American culture to erase from memory, never to be seen again. Last year, they suggested we forget about television, the Vice Presidency, and one of the Nobel prizes that actually matters. As those efforts were so resoundingly successful last year, they’re back with an even longer list for 2010, raining on the parade of internet memes, lawns (?), and, sadly, the cable news pundits we all know and love.

Fighting the good fight against “GOP shills” and “Democratic hacks” is… Democratic strategist Donna Brazile, who once worked as Al Gore‘s 2000 presidential campaign manager. Really. The only way a column like this could be more hypocritical is having Glenn Beck write a screed against chalkboards.

So how does a partisan cable news talking head argue against partisan cable news talking heads? By calling partisans on the other side of the aisle crazy, destructive, and useless. “Instead of partisan talking heads or mad hatters from the ‘tea party’ preaching their views on, say, health care and taxes,” she argues, “let’s hear from doctors and insurance professionals.” “Mad hatters”? Zing! Score one for the Democrats! But remember boys and girls, we must “get rid of the left-vs.-right commentators who are just out scoring points for their team. This sort of opinion-mongering is not only boring and predictable, it is destructive of the truth.”

“If a single move could restore civility to politics,” she continues, “that is it.” She’s right, of course– no public servants have ever said anything outrageous or been uncivil to each other. Only members of the media are rowdy and unprofessional, always. She ends her attack by making one final plea to keep her job, just in case anyone takes her piece seriously: “Some pundits could remain as political analysts. (I’m not crazy, am I?).”

Putting the fact that this is the opinion of a professional pundit aside, Brazile is absolutely right that a cable news world without pundits would be a much more civil one. But who wants the basic misconception that politics are “civil” to be considered indisputable fact, just because things would be more pleasant if that were true? CNN already tried to do away with the shouty pundit prototype when they canceled Crossfire, and now that they are consistently behind Fox News and MSNBC in the ratings, the idea of bringing back Crossfire has been front and center in many brainstorming experiments on how to “save” CNN. Yes, compared to MSNBC and Fox, there is a strong argument to be made that CNN is the most civil place on cable news, but if the ratings are any indication, American audiences prefer the ugly truth about politics to an airbrushed alternative reality.

Then there’s the fact that her claim that pundits have no important insight to contribute to a political news story is patently false. Most pundits are either political scholars or have been deeply entrenched in the political process themselves– just like Brazile. To suggest that James Carville or Karl Rove are somehow not representative of the type of people that tend to succeed in the political landscape is wishful thinking. She has a point that if an individual does not contribute anything but talking points to a show, with no experience or insight to add to the topic, they shouldn’t be on TV. The most obvious examples in recent memory are McCain-Palin spokesman Tucker Bounds and talk radio host Kevin James, taken down by Campbell Brown and Chris Matthews, respectively, and not really seen on television again since. People who do not know what they are talking about should not be on TV, but that doesn’t mean that everyone who is on TV doesn’t know what they are talking about– nor does it mean that the people who do know what they’re talking about have not been efficient in getting rid of anyone who doesn’t meet their standard.

If you have somehow ended up here on Mediaite, then you probably don’t need me to tell you that TV pundits are some of the most boisterous, hilarious and downright fascinating people in the world. They are the salt of the news world, the media equivalent of that terrible grape flavoring that makes cough syrup a little less disgusting, or at least comically so. They’re there to provide insight into what people with actual power think and behave like and simultaneously sacrifice some of their own dignity in the name of entertainment, especially if they once held the positions of those they now critique. It’s disingenuous to claim that all the disciplinary problems in the political world will magically disappear along with those pesky pundits, as if politics were not the gritty, shouty, dirty and, as a result, much more fair than the facade of objectivity Brazile is clamoring for.

CNN, Democrats, Donna Brazile, James Carville, Karl Rove, Pundits, Republicans, spring cleaning, TV, Washington Post

http://www.partizane.com NewHampster

Ms. Brazile suffers from an extreme case of foot-in-mouth disease. Remember this is the person who said,”I’ll resign the DNC if the super delegates decide the primary”. Sure.
dhg

So the female black version of James Carville wants people like James Carville off the air?I’d love to see mouthpeice free television journalism but she has to go with them.Every single one of these people serve no real purpose because they will never change one person’s mind or answer any question that has a different answer depending on what ideology you believe in.It would be great to never have to deal with two or more people talking at the same time or with commentators throwing attitude at you that they are smarter than you are.

A guy can dream right?In the meantime there’s always not watching any of it…ever.
germ

Remember, she is a Democrat. Hypocrisy doesn’t apply to them.
Cubby

Think about it people – no matter how you feel about Ms. Brazile, she’s absolutely right. What do you get from a partisan pundit spouting tired talking points, whether it’s on Olbermann or Hannity? You get the same old crap, the same old catchphrases and scripted answers designed to continue the endless right/left quagmire. Have you ever listened to Brooks & Dionne on PBS or NPR? There ARE still people out there who can intelligently discuss and debate political issues without being partisan attack dogs, and the news media needs to find more of them. Unfortunately, if our current cable news landscape (and this blog) are any indication, it’s not going to happen anytime soon.
michiganruth

the writer says:

“…if an individual does not contribute anything but talking points to a show…they shouldn’t be on TV. The most obvious examples in recent memory are McCain-Palin spokesman Tucker Bounds and talk radio host Kevin James, taken down by Campbell Brown and Chris Matthews, respectively…”

leaving aside the hilarious idea that Chris Matthews is capable of “taking down” somebody, I would suggest that maybe an even more “obvious example” would be Big Maher’s being completely PWNED by George Will. but I guess that example wouldn’t occur to a liberal.
nunspa

Frances, damn good artical… ::mad-hatter’s hats off:::
http://www.facebook.com/people/Chris-Van-Veen/617590041 Chris Van Veen

While Donna is right about ‘pundits,’ she somehow (rather implausibly) wants the right to remain one. Thanks go to Mediaite (member of the ‘new media’ that Obama hates) for bringing us this story of liberal hypocrisy.
badr

This is the monster that screwed up Gore’s chances against Bush after 8 years in the White House.
Sunnyr

Say WHAT?? Is this IGNORAMUS serious? lmao! She is saying that her dumb a$$ should be kicked OFF the airwaves? rotflmao!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://thedailybarb.com Jack Burns

I can just hear James Carville now. “What is this idiot talking about! No wonder Al lost the election in 2000″
Helix

Donna is a complete and utter fool, for several reasons. First, she really means she wants viewpoints opposed to hers suppressed. Second, politics is too important to not allow a free exchange of viewpoints and ideas, even if the discussion gets heated at times. Sometimes a sharp comment is necessary to drive a point home in the eyes of the audience. Third, unpleasant truths would be covered up by being over civil. Things like, say, your goverment officals are spending too much, lying to us, etc. It’s hard to call some one a liar with out being uncivil, just ask Joe Wilson….. And how many posters would say govt officials never lie to to the public? Being over civil would allow banality and deceit to take root in our society, more than they have already done so. Not being able to express your viewpoint becuase it is considered “uncivil” would lead to repressed anger and eventually violence when top officials refuse to admit there is any problem. Donna’s “cure” would be far, far worse than the disease.
kieronnpollard

She ended his attack by making a final plea to keep his job, if someone takes her piece of seriously: "Some experts might remain as political analysts.
memory stick
AmericanCowboy

Democrats = Big Government.
Castro = Big Government
Chavez = Big Government
Mao = Big Government
Saddam Hussein = Big Government
Hitler = Big Government
Obama = Big Government

“You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away people’s initiative and independence.
You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves.” – William John Henry Boetcker

Republicans believe in freedom. We don’t want Big Government making our decisions for us. The left needs the Government to make their decisions for them because they really don’t want that responsibility of choice aka the Freedom

“You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom.
What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation.
You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.” – Dr. Adrian Rogers

Why don’t you Dems have any pride! Are you that weak? Are you unable to take care of yourself and your family? Where is yourself respect? Do you really want to put your hand in the pocket of another man? Shame on you and those like you that would rather have a hand out than a hand up.