• sbv@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    0·
    3 months ago

    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)

    • Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.worldOP
      0·
      3 months ago

      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.’

      • sbv@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        0·
        3 months ago

        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.

  • radix@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    3 months ago

    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.

    • emax_gomax@lemmy.world
      0·
      3 months ago

      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.

      • Zonetrooper@lemmy.world
        0·
        3 months ago

        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.

        • everett@lemmy.ml
          0·
          3 months ago

          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]

          • Zonetrooper@lemmy.world
            0·
            3 months ago

            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.

  • Zonetrooper@lemmy.world
    0·
    3 months ago

    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.

  • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    3 months ago

    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.