Let's Kill all the Pundits

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.

 

Courage, Athletics and Mental Health

Another Olympics has come and gone.  Controversy of some kind seems to have become part of the experience of the games, and in the case of this one that controversy, at least here in God's Favorite Country, involves the decision of one participant to decline from participating in certain events.  But it appears that it's the reasons she gave for her decision that some find offensive rather than the decision itself.

I speculate that the self-appointed guardians of morality we hear from regarding this decision would have been silent if a physical injury or condition was involved (at least in ancient Rome, Censors were magistrates appointed not by themselves, but by others).  Perhaps I give them too much credit, but I like to think they wouldn't have gotten quite so excited if a broken leg was given as a reason.  But alas, not physical, but emotional and what are called "mental" issues were invoked, and this aroused the Censors of this age.

There's no question that successful athletes have been considered heroes or heroic for a very long time.  Those who aren't successful generally are ignored at best, mocked at worst.  That those who applaud these heroes or mock those who lose are generally themselves entirely lacking as athletes of any kind presents some interesting questions, but those questions will have to be the subjects of another post.

It strikes me that the view that athletes are to struggle on regardless of pain or injury is in some sense romantic, or a kind of expression of perceived masculine virtues--a sort of comparison along the lines of that parodied in SNL's Quien es Mas Macho.  I think this may be due, in part, to the tendency to think of sport as a sort of war.  Our British cousins are famous, or infamous, for claiming that team sports constitute outstanding preparation for war, and perhaps that has something to do with it.  There was a time when it was claimed that battles fought in war were won on the Playing Fields of Eton.  Those playing fields and others, though, were played in by the rich and aristocratic, and it's doubtful that they alone, or their schooldays, were responsible for any victory.    

There seems to be a difference between our glorification of team sports and the view of athletic heroism held in ancient times by the Greeks and Romans.  Individual achievement was glorified in the past, and as far as I'm aware, athletics were not deemed preparation for war in ancient times.  War was something fairly common then.  Training for war was a part of life for all citizens. It wasn't necessary to pretend to be at war as those of us who have not been at war enjoy doing now.

The case of Simone Biles is an interesting one.  She was, in fact, very successful before Tokyo.  There can be no question that she is lacking in ability, or that she doesn't have what it takes to be a great athlete.  One wonders how many medals are required to establish her qualifications, or to demonstrate she isn't "weak."  She had nothing left to prove and could have sat out these Olympics, I believe, without shame.

Nonetheless, her admission of doubts regarding her chances of success have been characterized as weakness; unworthiness, in fact.  Indeed, they've been claimed to be characteristic of our society.  Or, perhaps it's fairer to say that the reaction of some to her case is considered by others to indicate our nation and society are decadent or decayed.

It's apparent that some of our pundits are irritated that her admission of doubts is being praised by others, and particularly because the praise includes claims she is showing bravery and strength.  There is apparently nothing to be praised or honored in honesty in such a case, although given the negative reaction of the more reactionary among us, it may be said a certain bravery was required to make the admission.  Praising it or honoring it is said to encourage failure and lack of effort.  

The tendency of pundits and media to overstate, and especially to generalize, is clear.  It's what those paid to express outrage and emotion, to stir up interest and controversy, do--indeed, what they live for, and as such it's one of the many burdens we must carry throughout our lives given the fact that opinions are now ubiquitous regardless of their merit.  So, the praise given may well be excessive, as is the disfavor expressed.

But it's curious how inclined we are to ascribe qualities like courage, bravery, weakness, vacillation to others, especially when it comes to sports figures.  It's painfully clear that most of us are incapable of being professional athletes or those who perform at the higher levels.  Why then be critical of those of them who decide that it isn't worth their physical or mental health to continue to compete?  Why should they think it's worth their own harm to entertain us or indulge our voyeuristic or vicarious needs?

If it's appropriate to speak of the decadence or decay of our society, one would think that the fact we look to sports for examples of courage or moral strength would be a more compelling example of our degeneracy.  Is it only in athletics that we think those qualities obtain, or should be manifested?  Is their greatest expression pretending not to be concerned about mental or physical health?