Profiles in Punditry: Questions of Origin and Intent

"There was endless conversation,
No ones mouths were really moving,
All them dumpsters overflowing."
-Things I Don't Remember, Ugly Casanova

THE HYPE:

Analysis of an election is not going to change anyone’s vote, but media is still important. People tend to gravitate towards information that reinforces their preconceived notions about society. Media has the ability to prime individuals to care more about particular issues. It’s been demonstrated that ad watches tend to strengthen the impact of negative ads. There’s an emerging concept called the inoculation theory of communication: by presenting individuals with a certain message and offering a clarification (“my opponent will say x, but what that really means y”), the individual upon hearing the assertion remembers the clarification. How does commentary reinforce less than sultry narratives? Has the media been responsible in its choice of commentators and format? How have different messengers promoted specific narratives? Has inoculation been used to undermine some of the emerging negative messages? Profiles in Punditry will examine the messages and talking heads on both sides of the aisle to determine their influence in the final days of the Presidential campaign. The ultimate goal of Profiles in Punditry is to have a fairly objective discussion of stories and their context in an organized and interesting way.

OBJECTIVITY:

In any discussion of politics, it is inevitable that the views of the individual are going to play an impact in the presentation of evidence. As someone who is highly invested in the political process, it is impossible for me to claim complete neutrality in the way that I ingest information. Commentary is a commodity that Profiles and Punditry relies on. However, the promotion of any ideological slant is not the purpose of the blog. The entries will be a synthesis of commentary, with the understanding that political commentators are not representative of any specific campaign, constituents, or political philosophy. Not all members of one ideological group are going to reach the same opinion about a story. Ridiculous things said by one individual are not in any way a statement on the feelings of the American public. These assumptions will be absent from the blog. Profiles in Punditry is an examination of differences in narrative perspective on specific political stories and occurrences. The analysis of commentary will also have some basis in research and academic findings as they relate to the questions posed. In the interest of aesthetics and conciseness, the majority of opinions will be synthesized as a particular narrative will not be specifically cited. Direct quotes representative of specific narratives will be utilized to emphasize the point, however blanket statements (“some say”) will have been based on multiple sources, broadcast and virtual. Any and all requests for resources used in the formation of such statements will be honored, and can be sent to profilesinpunditry[at]gmail.com, or through comments at the end of the specific blog. Profiles in Punditry is not affiliated with any political organization.

UNDERSTANDING THE SECTIONS:

Section headings are used for visual appeal and to distinguish between the specific content of each section. Profiles in Punditry will use the following format for posting: title, outside material, the hype, the divide, the beat. The purpose of the title is to provide context on the story or stories that will be discussed, as well as the narrative or other concepts to be investigated. “The hype” represents an overview of reasons that the story has prevalence, typically with a focus on the salacious aspects of the material. Why is this story circulated? The hype will also establish the relative direction of specific narratives and provide the basis for the divide: two sections in the middle of the blog which will address the questions as promoted by the title, and establish “the beat.” The beat is an attempt to answer these questions through the use of academic principles. The major focus of the majority of narratives will be related to race or gender issues, although there may be other issues such as the effects of media and responsibility addressed by the blog. It’s pretty fluid.

THE BEAT:

Part of the difficulty and appeal of discussing political commentary is the wide array of resources and directions that such a journey can take, as well as navigating through what is relevant news and what is pure narrative spin. The self-involved nature of and blowhard ideology espoused by commentators has provided the most amusing aspects of news caricatures such as Saturday Night Live's Weekend Update or The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Profiles in Punditry is an attempt to have the best of both worlds. Through the investigation of academic concepts through the integration of narrative perspectives and a hint of humor, Profiles in Punditry hopes to both clarify and intensify the enjoyment of modern media. Nice to meet you!

UP NEXT--Sarah Palin's clothing, and a discussion of gender.