Shakespeare's line "Let's kill all the lawyers" has attained a certain popularity, due to the fact that lawyers are, surprisingly, unpopular. So many things and people are these days, of course, so perhaps this is a suggestion applicable to others as well.
In fact, Shakespeare was writing of a plan to establish an autocracy. It was recommended that the lawyers be killed as a first step of the plan. Perhaps lawyers were actually being praised, then, as protectors of the freedom and rights of the people. If so, I doubt whether that conception is very widespread now, though the recommendation still is.
I propose that this sentiment is more properly applicable to political pundits. They infest the media. They're omnipresent, and I can't understand why.
If news consists of the reporting of events of importance, it no longer exists, if indeed it ever did. It would be refreshing if that actually took place. More significantly, it would be useful without being merely the expression of opinions and speculation. Imagine if what was reported in the media were merely events and actions. For example, it would be noted that so-and-so gave a speech somewhere, at some time. The content of the speech wouldn't be described. In most cases, the content may be inferred in any event, as political speeches are largely repetitive. The speech itself wouldn't be broadcasted. What joy!
We would no longer be subjected to the ponderings and speculations of those deemed experts. Several of them are now produced whenever anything happens. Questions are asked of them by whomever it is that's supposedly reporting the news, and they respond. Sometimes those selected disagree, but in most cases they agree. We're told they know what they're talking about.
For me, the inherent fault of this manner of reporting the news is that for the most part, the news itself isn't reported, or is at best merely noted as fodder for an extended discussion. Instead, what some person or other thinks about the news and their interpretation of it and its consequences is reported, and in detail.
My difficulty is that I don't particularly care what that person thinks. They're entitled to their opinions, of course, but if I wanted to know them, I'd seek them out in some fashion. That they're foisted on me by media lackeys is something I resent.
Then one must recognize that these experts may be stupid, ignorant, in someone's pocket or prejudiced. They may not in fact be experts. In simple words, their opinions and statements may be wrong. Why, then, are they presented as news? Why dignify them? Why give them influence? Why foster the belief that what they say is factual...is in fact news?
It may be too late now to stop the ascension of punditry. It must have become a kind of trade or industry by now. People no doubt hold themselves out as experts willing to squawk obligingly and winningly on the various "news" networks and make a good deal of money for doing so. It's no longer the news that's important; it's what a select group of people think about the news.
