Do YOU know the difference. It doesn't seem that way to me based on the threads in this forum. One definition of a pundit is: A pundit is someone who offers to mass media her or his opinion or commentary on a particular subject area (most typically political analysis, the social sciences or sport) on which they are usually knowledgeable (or can at least appear to be knowledgeable). A journalist is a little tougher to define but nowhere in the definition do you find the words opinion or commentary. Here is one definition: A journalist collects, writes and distributes news and other information. A journalist's work is referred to as journalism. A reporter is a type of journalist who researches, writes, and reports information to present in sources, conduct interviews, engage in research, and make reports. The information-gathering part of a journalist's job is sometimes called "reporting," in contrast to the production part of the job such as writing articles. Reporters may split their time between working in a newsroom and going out to witness events or interview people. Reporters may be assigned a specific beat or area of coverage. Depending on the context, the term journalist may include various types of editors, editorial writers, columnists, and visual journalists, such as photojournalists (journalists who use the medium of photography). Journalism has developed a variety of ethics and standards. While objectivity and a lack of bias are often considered important, some types of journalism, such as advocacy journalism, intentionally adopt a non-objective viewpoint. I wonder if anyone that watches Fox or other cable shows even understands that programs like Fox, MSNBC, Comedy Central, and I'd even throw in CNN are pretty much punditry and not real news. Shows like Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilley Jr., Rachel Maddow, Jon Stewart, Colbert, and the rest, don't really qualify as journalism. They all represent a strange mix of punditry, entertainment, and comedy. Is that really so difficult to understand?
Not at all and, for once, I totally agree with you. The problem I have with the media, however, is that those who purport to be journalists really are NOT (** cough ** Dan Rather ** cough **). Here's a fun little animation you should watch:
I always thought a "pundit" was someone who stole a joke and ran off with it. I will say that Wolf Blitzer does pretty well at keeping a sense of journalistic integrity, but since he's human....or a human/wolf hybrid, who knows...he occasionally wanders into punditry himself. Even he is nowhere near what I'd consider a pure journalist...someone who states facts without commentary. The problem with "facts" is that mental illness, especially the kind republicans are suffering from, can twist "facts" in ways that suit their needs. An example of that is a report on FOX "News" where Zimmerman is supposedly shown after the incident with Martin. His face looks bloody. FOX contended that was proof that Zimmerman had the right to stand his ground. They left out the fact that Zimmerman chased after Martin, according to the remarks Zimmerman himself claimed. But, Zimmerman could have beaten himself bloody, after shooting Martin. I don't think he did, but it's possible. The point is, investigative journalism looks to find the truth in the incident. FOX "News" doesn't do that. They try to manipulate the truth to fit an agenda.
Wrong! A pundit is what the team does on fourth down and they're out of field goal range. Snap the kicker the ball and he pundits.
"Smokey and the Pundit, IV"...horrible movie. Newt went the full monty, showing his Brazilian side. Did not need to see that.
The news channels are mostly just infotainment. Not good for much except for those that want to have their beliefs validated by the talking heads from one side or the other. Although CNN is certainly, by far in my opinion, the 'least worst' of the 3 biggies, they probably started a lot of it with Crossfire. Although that show was at least fairly intelligent and mostly balanced in its early days (early to mid 80ies).
They are pretty awful really, with more commentary than actual news. Their sister channel, Headline News (HLN), isn't as bad...it's more like the 80s version...but has a lot of "pulpit sermons" itself. Filtering out all the bs, there might be five minutes of actual news in an average day on HLN...repeated over and over throughout the day, of course. It's nearly impossible to find pure, unbiased news, outside of local stations reporting on local news.
I am soooooo guilty. I hate to watch it, but I'm researching the various differences between the organizations (CNN, FOX, MSNBC) Like Obama crying yesterday, he made a comment that I knew FOX would jump on, so I immediately changed the channel and FOX immediately denounced the comment lol It's inaction sports at it's worst, FOX I mean.
