In the wake of last Tuesday’s elections the press has coalesced into a near monotonic dispenser of conventional witless-dom. Pundit after pundit repeated the hackneyed, lazy analysis that the election results reflect a single-minded expression of anti-incumbency on the part of voters. The headlines from newspapers and television shout the same shallow conclusion that the people just want to “throw the bums out.” Perhaps they do, but it isn’t the bums that you’re thinking about.
Whatever the media platform, the stories were uniform across every ideological slant. Here is short sampling of the so-called wisdom from Punditville:
- Los Angeles Times: Tuesday elections: bad for incumbents
- Washington Post: Incumbent Armageddon?
- Fox News: Anti-Incumbent Fever Hits America
- ABC News: Victories for Joe Sestak, Rand Paul Signal Voters’ Anti-Incumbent Mood
- Baltimore Sun: Incumbents have reason to worry in November
The only problem with these analyses is that they are not founded in reality. To be sure, there are sectors of the electorate who are opposed to anyone tainted with the scent of Washington. But many of the victors in Tuesday’s primaries were veterans of public service who, therefore, could not have won because of some mythic Washington virginity.
If there is a problem with incumbency, it isn’t with office-holders. It’s with pundits. The very people who are complaining about how length of service is detrimental to the service provided have themselves been serving for decades as columnists and commentators. They accuse legislators of losing touch with the public, but ignore their own separation from the common folk they purport to be representing and informing.
How many decades have people like Bill Kristol, Fred Barnes, David Broder, Howard Kurtz, Judith Miller, David Gergen, Thomas Friedman, etc., been peddling their views? Why are they supposed to be considered immune to the DC infection, while lawmakers are presumed to suffer from it chronically? Most of these veteran pundits have been proven to wrong so often that it’s hard to fathom why anyone would take their opinions seriously.
The recurring spectacle of twenty year veteran pundits disparaging twenty year veteran politicians for having been around too long, without any hint of irony, is a symptom of our broken media. At least the politicians have to come before the voters from time to time to get their status renewed. The pundits just keep coming back, year after year, despite their tenure and their bias and their failures, simply because the only votes cast for them are by their colleagues who are all members of the same club.
It would be interesting if there were a way to democratize the press. Make the pundits stand for reelection every couple of years. Hold them accountable for their records. Allow smarter, more insightful analysts to campaign for the few jobs available in mass media. Can you imagine it? Bob Cesca or Joan Walsh could challenge Sean Hannity or Chris Matthews for control of those programs by comparing their political prognostications. Markos Moulitsas could run for James Carville’s job on the Situation Room. Maybe even I could take over Kurtz’s column at the Washington Post and begin hosting Reliable Sources.
Obviously, nothing like that is going to happen. The decision makers are too ensconced in their fiefdoms and would not relinquish that power. And in the event that somebody makes the argument that the market will decide these things, first explain to me how Wolf Blitzer still has a job. What market principle is responsible for that?
So the mantra in political circles to “throw the bums out” is a good one. So long as it applies to the bums in the press. That’s where the most damage is being done by people who weren’t elected to represent anyone and who are never subject to evaluation based on their work.
If we had professional, ethical, honest journalists populating the newsrooms in America, we wouldn’t have to wade through stories about “death panels” and lesbian Supreme Court nominees. We wouldn’t have to balance facts with fables. We wouldn’t be treating the Tea Party as if it were actually significant. And we wouldn’t have so many Americans misinformed about easily confirmable matters like the President’s national origins.


The past couple of weeks Glenn Beck has been raving about some sort of criminal enterprise that he imagines is being run from the White House. Even with the help of his blackboards he hasn’t ever been able to coherently explain it, but he is convinced that it exists and, as befits his Messianic hallucinations, it is out to get him.
Now that Campbell Brown has announced that she will be signing off of her CNN show, CNN has an opportunity to advance the state of journalism. They are the network that claims to be the champions of straight news and they dismiss the partisanship that is so deeply ingrained in Fox News and, to a lesser extent, MSNBC. So if they are serious, they need to take a long, hard look at themselves and begin to construct the sort of ethical news enterprise to which they claim to aspire.

Glenn Beck has been pretty busy this weekend. After delivering the commencement speech at Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University in Virginia, where he told the graduating class to “shoot to kill,” he jetted off to North Carolina to deliver the same message to the National Rifle Association. He began is address by appropriately greeting the crowd with a hearty “Hello gun nuts.”
A week ago President Barack Obama gave the commencement speech at Hampton College in Virginia, and unleashed a 