Home | About | RSS Feed | Contact and Publicity Guidelines | Comment Policy the Law, the Universe, and Everything 

Search


Concurring Opinions is a
general-interest legal blog
operated by Concurring
Opinions LLC, a Pennsylvania
Limited Liability Corporation.

jr_114_9780195367195_bnr

jr_114_9780195383768_bnr

advertise-here4


FC-CO(SS)

Our Podcast

Subscribe to Law Talk

law-rev-contents2.jpg


  • Posts by Author

  • Categories

  • Archives


  • Recent Comments

    • RJ on Ricci: Color-Blind Standards in a Race Conscious Society?

    • RJ on Ricci and Briscoe as Disparate Impact Cases

    • Mike Rich on Negligent Corpse Mishandling

    • anon on Privacy and Tattletales

    • orly lobel on At CELS, Hoping to Blog

    • harry brooks on Ricci: Color-Blind Standards in a Race Conscious Society?

    • RJ on Ricci: Color-Blind Standards in a Race Conscious Society?

    • Michael H Schneider on Negligent Corpse Mishandling

    • flood pictures on Public opinion on same-sex marriage

    • gtownstudent on And Justache For All at GW Law

    • AF on Ricci and Briscoe as Disparate Impact Cases

    • RJ on Ricci and Briscoe as Disparate Impact Cases

    • Maryland Conservatarian on Ricci: Color-Blind Standards in a Race Conscious Society?

    • Daniel S. Goldberg on Negligent Corpse Mishandling

    • PrometheeFeu on KSM on Trial

  •  

    Site Meter

Our Talking Point Culture

posted by Daniel Solove

Every year, when I think it can’t get worse, it does. I’m referring to the political discourse by pundits that carries on incessantly like cicadas. Every day, I’m bombarded by various arguments and opinions about the candidates made by the political pundits and spin doctors. These creatures have always existed, but there seems to be more and more of them these days — they’re reproducing like a plague of locusts. Even the news media are spinning themselves, with CNN constantly insisting that it has the “best political coverage” and with Fox crying out that it’s “fair and balanced.” After all, if you say it enough, it must be true.

Dan Filler at the Faculty Lounge refers to this terrific clip from The Daily Show illustrating how the pundits blatantly contradict themselves:

And then there’s the recent episode of Peggy Noonan caught on an open microphone expressing sentiments that contradicted what she was publicly saying.

It seems as though all these pundits and spin doctors are just playing a game, saying things not because they’re true, not because they believe them, not even because they’re plausible — they just make arguments because they support their side. But this is all just noise. Why must we be constantly be bombarded with this inane and phony banter? It would be refreshing, for once, to hear people express their actual opinions, to hear them make arguments that they really believed in rather than what they felt was the party line. It would be refreshing to no longer keep hearing the talking points, and to have a real discourse, not a phony one with scripted arguments that change on a dime if expedient.

So here’s my plea for the media — stop giving these pundits all the airtime. Yank them off the air. Don’t print their drivel in the papers. Let’s just assume that the pundits for each side are just going to spout off whatever they find expedient. Do we really need to hear more of it? Let’s just say that they cancel each other out, and then start with a fresh slate. So please give the airtime and op-ed space to people who are willing to express opinions with integrity, who actually care about developing principled positions rather than merely churning out debate club stock arguments. This is my plea. I’ve reached my saturation point. I can’t take any more. This is a form of torture that must be worse than water boarding.


 September 4, 2008 at 1:30 pm   Posted in: Politics   Print This Post Print This Post

Responses (11)

  1. Frank - September 4, 2008 at 2:16 pm

    Agreed. I cannot believe the cable networks actually substituted pundits for Kerry’s speech last week. One more thing that drove me to watch the conventions from live feeds from the parties’ sites, rather than cable or networks.

  2. david niehaus - September 4, 2008 at 2:17 pm

    Asking the networks to regulate this kind of entertainment is pointless. Broadband has exposed the limits of intelligent human communication. The time has to be filled so what gets said is a good deal less important than the fact that something is being said. One solution is to look for Andy Griffith marathons. Or, even better, turn off your TV.

  3. Nate Oman - September 4, 2008 at 3:46 pm

    Dan: My suggestion is that you simply get rid of all television news. I’m serious. Stop watching it; it’s crap. You can get plenty of information from print or the internet, and you can screen out most of the idiotic yammering or at least dramatically reduce it.

  4. Daniel J. Solove - September 4, 2008 at 3:55 pm

    Frank, Nate, and David — The TV news is particularly bad, but the problem exists everywhere. It also exists in newspaper op-ed pages, blogs, etc. It’s everywhere. It is increasingly harder to escape from it, and it frustrates me more generally that this is how our political discourse is proceeding. Shielding myself in a bubble only blunts the pain a little bit, especially when I know what’s going on outside. It also permeates the speeches of candidates and others, and there often doesn’t seem to be much of a line between the punditry and the political speeches themselves.

  5. James Grimmelmann - September 4, 2008 at 4:28 pm

    Nate, you’re exactly right. Cutting down on pictures helps, too.

    And Dan, when you say “stop giving these pundits all the airtime,” I believe you mean “stop giving these Republican pundits all the airtime.” That’s where most of the mendacity is coming from.

  6. JP - September 4, 2008 at 6:09 pm

    James,

    That was funny, until I realized you didn’t intend to be ironic.

  7. James Grimmelmann - September 4, 2008 at 6:54 pm

    I didn’t plan it.

    But I fooled you.

    Now that’s ironic.

    And funny, too.

  8. Danielle Citron - September 5, 2008 at 5:28 am

    Dan,

    I could not agree more. And last night’s convention confirmed my feeling that sometimes pundit mimic those whom they tease–if politicians make policy seem like gum-ball sound bites then maybe pundits are just following their lead.

    Thanks for the clip!

  9. Maryland Conservatarian - September 5, 2008 at 10:18 am

    Prof. Grimmelmann is right – that’s why I stick to MSNBC…although at times I do wish Keith would loosen up and stop being so damn measured and even-handed…

  10. JP - September 5, 2008 at 3:25 pm

    James,

    I’m not saying your underlying point re: Republican pundits is wrong (I don’t watch them), or funny in and of itself.

    It’s ironic because it’s phony and inane partisanship on a thread decrying phony and inane partisanship. Such irony would be funny if intentional. I did not think yours was intentional.

    I have no idea what your 6:54 comment is saying, so I guess that yes, you must have fooled me.

  11. P.S. Ruckman, Jr. - September 9, 2008 at 12:41 pm

    Another case in points: for weeks Obama has been up in national polls by 5-10 points. The pundits credited the lead to his message, the economy, his personality, disfavor with the Bush administration, the unpopular war, etc.

    Today, McCain is up in a national poll by 10 points. The same pundits now say such polls are meaningless, we shouldn’t give them too much weight, etc.

    Perhaps Stewart can lampoon these “expert” commentators as well.

Leave a Reply

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Click to hear an audio file of the anti-spam word


  • « Previous post
  • Next post »

Authors

Daniel J. Solove

Website
Understanding Privacy

Kaimipono Wenger

Website
SSRN Page

Dave Hoffman

Website
SSRN Page

Nate Oman

Website
SSRN Page

Frank Pasquale

Website
SSRN Page

Deven Desai

Website
SSRN Page

Danielle Citron

Website
SSRN Page

Lawrence Cunningham

Website
SSRN Page

Sarah Waldeck

Website
SSRN Page

Jaya Ramji-Nogales

Website
SSRN Page

Solangel Maldonado

Website
SSRN Page

Gerard Magliocca

Website
SSRN Page


Guests

Rachel Godsil
Alex Kreit
Anita Krishnakumar
Matthew Sag
Michael Zimmer






Previous Guests

Michael Abramowicz
Michelle Adams
Robert Ahdieh
Michelle Anderson
Laura Appleman
Ann Bartow
Francesca Bignami
Jeremy Blumenthal
Kathleen Boozang
Bruce Boyden
Donald Braman
Al Brophy
Neil H. Buchanan
Bill Burke-White
Scott Burris
Paul Butler
Naomi Cahn
Anupam Chander
Miriam Cherry
Jack Chin
Jennifer Collins
Allison Danner
Brannon Denning
Deven Desai
Mike Dimino
Mark Edwards
David Fagundes
Christine Haight Farley
Kim Ferzan
Dan Filler
Michael Froomkin
Amanda Frost
Timothy Glynn
Rachel Godsil
Eric Goldman
David Gray
Craig Green
Tristin Green
Jeffrey Harrison
Erica Hashimoto
Carissa Hessick
Laura Heymann
Robert Hillman
Christine Hurt
Darian Ibrahim
John Ip
Kevin Johnson
Dan Kahan
Brian Kalt
Sam Kamin
Michael Kang
Chimène Keitner
Orin Kerr
Nancy Kim
Heidi Kitrosser
Adam Kolber
Russell Korobkin
Anita S. Krishnakumar
Susan Kuo
Greg Lastowka
Sarah Lawsky
Erik Lillquist
Jeff Lipshaw
Jonathan Lipson
Jacqueline Lipton
Joseph Liu
Michael Madison
Solangel Maldonado
Jason Mazzone
Linda McClain
William McGeveran
Salil Mehra
Carrie Menkel-Meadow
Max Minzner
Scott Moss
Eric Muller
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Helen Norton
Elizabeth Nowicki
Paul Ohm
Michael O'Shea
David Opderback
Kristen Osenga
Rafael Pardo
Marcy Peek
Eduardo Peñalver
Robert Percival
David Post
Shruti Rana
Geoffrey Rapp
Neil Richards
Lori Ringhand
Alice Ristroph
Susan Scafidi
Paul Secunda
Jonathan Siegel
Jessica Silbey
Peter Smith
Charles Sullivan
Rick Swedloff
Steph Tai
Andrew Taslitz
Robert Tsai
Jenia Turner
Steve Vladeck
Sarah Waldeck
Melissa Waters
Alfred Yen
David Zaring
Timothy Zick
Spencer Weber Waller
Howard Wasserman
Frank Wu
Corey Yung
Jonathan Zittrain

Blogroll

Above the Law
ACS Blog
Althouse
Balkinization
Becker-Posner Blog
BlackProf
BoingBoing
Chicago Law Faculty Blog
Conglomerate
CrimLaw
Crime & Federalism
CrimProf Blog
Crooked Timber
Discourse.net
Dorf on Law
Election Law
Emergent Chaos
The Faculty Lounge
Feminist Law Profs
43(B)log
Freakonomics Blog
Freedom to Tinker
Google Blogoscoped
How Appealing
Ideoblog
Info/Law
Instapundit.com
Juris Novus
Jurisdynamics
Law and Humanities Blog
Law and Letters
Law Librarian Blog
Legal Profession Blog
Legal Theory Blog
Legal Times Blog
Leiter Reports
Brian Leiter's Law School Reports
Lessig Blog
Madisonian Theory
Media Law Blog
Mirror of Justice
The Moderate Voice
National Security Advisors
Opinio Juris
Point of Law
PrawfsBlawg
ProfessorBainbridge.com
Property Prof Blog
Red Tape Chronicles
The Right Coast
Schneier on Security
SCOTUSBlog
Security Dilemmas
Sentencing Law and Policy
Simple Justice
Sivacracy.net
The Situationist
Susan Crawford
TalkLeft
Talking Points Memo
TaxProf Blog
Tech & Marketing Law
Truth on the Market
Volokh Conspiracy
WorkPlace Prof Blog
WSJ Law Blog
Wonkette
The Yin Blog


© Concurring Opinions

Powered by WordPress