We need new pundits


If there is bipartisan consensus on anything in 2016, it is the abysmal performance of the establishment political media.

Gallup informs us that mass media ratings are at an all-time low. And there is good reason for it: With a few notable exceptions, political journalism in 2016 has been awful. Instead of real reporting and insightful analysis, we are served a toxic mash-up of false equivalence, mangled facts, hidden agendas, obsessive repetition, shop-worn narratives, selective outrage, botched prognostication, and the numbing recitation of tired scripts delivered by a procession of uninspired talking heads.

Examples of failed punditry abound. Take Morning Joe, a bastion of Beltway conventional wisdom. Joe Scarborough, the show's host, has oscillated from calling for Trump's ouster to being his chief sycophant. His hostility to Hillary Clinton is boundless, mirroring the pervasive antagonism toward her in all corners of the elite political media.

There is no rhyme or reason to coverage and commentary, just an impulsive regurgitation of conventional wisdom (if you can call it wisdom).


When Hillary Clinton's emails are covered for 600 days to the exclusion of countless issues that matter to the public, we need new pundits.

When Andrea Mitchell asks if Clinton has a health problem because she took time off to prep for the crucial third debate, we need new pundits.

We need new pundits.

We need a better media.

It's that simple.