Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
In a world where every person is free to share their opinion directly to a mass audience, *we need trusted experts in various fields more than ever.
No, they're not necessarily going to be concentrated only in traditional media, but if I'm looking something up real quick, I'm more likely to trust some random author on a real news site than some random author on social media. Maybe I'd still get wrong information sometimes, but the odds are better.
I'll be honest when I read the question I was like "did we ever need them" but reading the comments it all makes sense. I think part of the reason I didn't see the point is so many pundits I see online just seem to be casual googlers who think reading a bit makes them an expert on the field. You put some random guy who talks with confidence in front of a camera and they can actually build an audience despite being crocked full of sh*t. 100% agree we need actual veteran experts in fields to share objective truth to audiences who've inundated with blatant lies.
Part of it is that the question is phrased to make you react that way. By using "pundits" as opposed to "commentators" or "analysts", it primes you to think about someone at Fox (or, these days, Youtube) pounding on a table while screaming about immigrants, as opposed to a respected individual evenhandedly explaining the complexities of a nuanced issue.
From 1913 Webster's, to show how "far" we've come:
Pun"dit (?), n. [Hind. pandit, Skr. pandita a learned man.] A learned man; a teacher; esp., a Brahman versed in the Sanskrit language, and in the science, laws, and religion of the Hindoos; in Cashmere, any clerk or native official. [Written also pandit.] [India]
I did not know that is where it came from, but that's neat (if a touch depressing). Thank you for that info. Fascinating how languages shift.
Thats what Im saying; experts are free to post directly to a mass audience.
We need experts that are knowledgeable on issues who can put them in context for lay readers.
In the past, those were often beat reporters, but academics can fit that role too.
With the collapse of traditional media ~~hegemonies~~ companies we've lost beat reporters, so we have to rely on third party experts. Of course, there are problems with that: if they're owned by bad actors, then they can spread misleading narratives.
I'm not sure who fills that role now. Whoever can tweet the most convincingly at journalists? Whoever makes the sexiest YouTube explainer?
😂^(we're screwed)
I don't think the bad actors are coming from online. The bad actors are the ones who call themselves news and amplify a message bought and paid for by corporations. They then say, it's only editorializing. The news happens only from '6:15-6:17.'
Agreed - traditional media and online commentary both suffer from this problem.
We need a way for beat reporters to get paid for their work. Sadly that doesn't really exist right now.
I wouldn't say they don't exist. Podcasting is a legitimate platform.
Agree with the others - in a world where every person can freely share their direct opinion, it is more critical than ever to have individuals whose role it is to research, contextualize, and present the issue in a constructive and clear fashion.
The problem of media capture by various groups is an issue, certainly, but that means it's something we have to be wary of and build boundaries against - because the key role they serve is still in place. Throwing out the entire system because of that issue is like deciding that we no longer need doctors because the for-profit medical system is broken.
Pundentry does not provide us with researched, contextualize, constructive editorilizing. These people are bought and paid for. The only outlook they give us is how corporate intrerst will rationalize this so the bottom line stays in tact.
Yes, similar to the web of trust, there exists a web of trust for people based on reputation. Journalistic integrity, openness, scrutiny; these are just a few of the things that go away when experts go away.
People who dedicate their lives to truth should be recognized as such, and those who lie should be recognized as well. Outsourcing your information gathering to "randoms" just means that you will be swayed by whoever can afford the best bot farm.
And if you think you are unswayable, you are the perfect target.
Follow those who express curiosity, welcome questioning, and conduct themselves in good faith. It's an iterative process, you don't have to resolve it in a day.
We might need professional thinkers to give comments.
No more pundits, we need more creators! This is a good example,
https://www.instagram.com/reel/C53rriiRuIl/?igsh=MW5jdWF5MGltdDY5Nw==
The importance of pundits has been diminishing for years now for several reasons:
The world is increasingly complex and opaque. If someone claims to know what's really going on, don't believe them.
A pundit's main talent these days is to be comfortable in front of a camera, and to be able to pontificate at length. This is only loosely connected with any actual expertise or experience they may have.
A successful pundit needs to be aware of the hosting organization's biases. If they go on a mainstream cable network with an anti-corporate message they will be swiftly shitcanned.
News orgs have been slashing budgets for overseas, on the ground reporting so we get pundits who have access to the same information as everyone else.
