Pundit
.jpg)
.jpg)
A pundit is a person who offers opinion in an authoritative manner on a particular subject area (typically politics, the social sciences, technology or sport), usually through the mass media.[1][2][3]
Origins
[edit]The term originates from the Sanskrit term pandit (paṇḍitá पण्डित), meaning "knowledge owner" or "learned man".[4] It refers to someone who is erudite in various subjects and who conducts religious ceremonies and offers counsel to the king and usually referred to a person from the Hindu Brahmin but may also refer to the siddhas, Siddhars, Naths, ascetics, sadhus, or yogis (rishi).
From at least the early 19th century, a Pundit of the Supreme court in Colonial India was an officer of the judiciary who advised British judges on questions of Hindu law. In Anglo-Indian use, pundit also referred to a native of India who was trained and employed by the British to survey inaccessible regions beyond the British frontier.[5]
Current use
[edit] | The examples and perspective in this section deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. (September 2020) |
Josef Joffe's book chapter The Decline of the Public Intellectual and the Rise of the Pundit describes a change in the role of public experts and relates to developments in the audience and the media itself.[6] In the second half of the 20th century, foreigners like Hannah Arendt or Jürgen Habermas and others gained a certain position in the US as public intellectuals due to the (over)specialization of US academics.[7]
A pundit now combines the roles of a public intellectual and has a certain expertise as a media practitioner. They play an increasing role in disseminating ideas and views in an accessible way to the public.[8] From Joffe's view, Karl Marx in Europe and e.g. in the US, Mark Twain were early and relentless pundits ante festum.[6] In addition, the growing role of think tanks and research institutions like the Brookings Institution, the American Enterprise Institute and the Manhattan Institute provided a place for those dealing with 'big issues' in public language.[6]
The term talking head (in existence since 1964[9]) has derogatory overtones. For example, the judge in the David Westerfield trial in San Diego in 2002 said "The talking heads are doing nothing but speculating about what the jury may or may not be thinking".[10]
Punditry has become a more popular vehicle in nightly newscasts on American cable news networks. A rise of partisanship among popular pundits began with Bill O'Reilly of Fox News Channel. His opinion-oriented format led him to ratings success and has led others, including Bill Maher, Keith Olbermann, and Nancy Grace to express their opinions on matters on their own programs.[11]
In sports commentating, a "pundit" or color commentator may be partnered with a play-by-play announcer who will describe the action while asking the pundit for analysis.[citation needed]
Expansion of Political Punditry in the Social Media Era
[edit]The rise of social media platforms has significantly expanded the role of political pundits, enabling a wide range of commentators to reach audiences beyond traditional media channels. Unlike conventional pundits associated with broadcast or print outlets, many new media commentators operate independently, leveraging platforms such as YouTube, X (formerly known as Twitter), and Twitch to engage directly with viewers.[12] This shift has democratized access to political discourse, allowing people across the ideological spectrum to amplify their perspectives and build substantial followings.[13] The barriers to entry have also decreased, as people can create content with minimal resources and distribute it widely without relying on traditional gatekeepers such as television networks or publishers.[14]
Social media has transformed how political commentary is produced and consumed, emphasizing immediacy and accessibility. Commentators can engage audiences with videos, tweets, and live streams, enabling real-time responses to breaking news and shaping public opinion before traditional media can react.[15] The interactive nature of social media fosters personal connections between commentators and their audiences, enhancing loyalty and influence.[12] These platforms also shift the financial landscape, with many commentators relying on crowdfunding or ad revenue to sustain their work, creating a degree of independence from traditional media institutions.[16]
Algorithms on social media platforms play a critical role in shaping the prominence of political punditry. Research indicates that these platforms prioritize emotionally charged content, such as outrage or enthusiasm, because it drives higher engagement through clicks, shares, and comments.[17] This algorithmic bias can amplify polarizing material, creating feedback loops that reinforce ideological biases.[18] Over time, these dynamics contribute to the formation of ideological echo chambers, where individuals are exposed primarily to information that aligns with their existing beliefs, limiting exposure to alternative viewpoints.[12] The prevalence of such echo chambers has been documented in studies examining the effects of algorithmic curation on user behavior and media consumption.[14]
Prominent commentators from across the political spectrum have leveraged these dynamics to expand their influence. On the right, figures such as Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh, and Jordan Peterson have built large followings by addressing cultural and political topics relevant to conservative audiences.[19] Similarly, left-leaning commentators like Hasan Piker, ContraPoints, and Sam Seder have used their platforms to engage audiences, emphasizing progressive issues and fostering grassroots support. These commentators not only interpret political events but actively shape public opinion and mobilize their audiences to participate in activities such as voting, protesting, and campaign donations.[20]
The expansion of political punditry in the social media era has introduced challenges, including the spread of misinformation and the prioritization of sensationalism over substantive discussion.[12] The economic incentives of social media often reward attention-grabbing content, contributing to the proliferation of unverified or misleading information.[17] The societal implications of these trends, particularly their influence on political polarization and public discourse, continue to be areas of active research and debate.[14]
Funding and Platforming Disparities
[edit]A key difference between right- and left-wing social media commentators lies in the structure and accessibility of their funding. Prominent right-wing figures often receive substantial financial backing from conservative organizations, think tanks, and donor networks, enabling them to produce high-quality content with extensive reach. Platforms such as The Daily Wire, which hosts commentators like Shapiro, Walsh, and many others, benefit from significant investments aimed at countering perceived liberal dominance in mainstream media.[21] This financial support facilitates sophisticated production quality, marketing strategies, and broad distribution, which contribute to greater visibility and audience impact.[17]
In contrast, left-leaning commentators largely depend on grassroots funding models, including crowdfunding through platforms like Patreon, YouTube memberships, and Twitch subscriptions.[14] This model strengthens the relationship between creators and their audiences but limits the scale of available resources for production and outreach, potentially affecting the quality and reach of their content. Research suggests that the reliance on grassroots funding can make left-leaning commentators more vulnerable to financial instability, which impacts their ability to compete with well-funded counterparts.[12]
Recent research has examined the role of algorithms in amplifying political content, revealing a potential bias toward right-wing material. A study found that right-leaning political parties and news outlets received greater algorithmic amplification on X compared to their left-leaning counterparts.[22] The study highlighted that this disparity resulted from user interactions with X’s recommendation algorithm, rather than direct interventions by the platform.[22] These algorithmic dynamics further compound the reach disparities between commentators with differing funding structures, as well-funded commentators may already enjoy broader visibility.[13]
The disparities in funding and platforming have significant implications for the influence of political commentators in the digital age. Well-funded commentators often achieve greater access to mainstream audiences and dominate political discourse, while grassroots-funded commentators may struggle to maintain comparable production quality and distribution. Scholars argue that this imbalance could shape public opinion disproportionately, reinforcing existing political divides.[20] Additionally, the interaction between funding dynamics and algorithmic content promotion underscores the importance of further research to understand the broader societal impact of social media on political communication.[15]
Examples of Establishment Pundits
[edit]Popular in the United States during 2007 according to a Forbes top 10 list:[23][24][unreliable source?]
- Politics and current events
- Film
See also
[edit]- Columnist
- Opinion leadership
- Pundette
- Carl Diggler – fictional character parodying contemporary American political pundits
- Stephen Colbert (character)
- Talk radio
- Talk show
References
[edit]- ^ "Definition of Pundit". Merriam-Webster. 22 February 2024. Retrieved 25 February 2024.
- ^ "Pundit". Dictionary.com. Retrieved 25 February 2024.
- ^ "Pundit". Cambridge Dictionary. Retrieved 25 February 2024.
- ^ Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). . Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 22 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 649.
- ^ "pundit, n." in Oxford English Dictionary
- ^ a b c Joffe, Josef (2003). "The Decline of the Public Intellectual and the Rise of the Pundit". In Melzer, Arthur M.; Zinmann, Richard M. (eds.). The Public Intellectual, Between Philosophy and Politics. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. pp. 109–122.
- ^ POSNER, Richard A. (30 June 2009). Public Intellectuals: A Study of Decline, With a New Preface and Epilogue. Harvard University Press. pp. 4–5. ISBN 9780674042278.
- ^ Dahlgren, Peter (2013). The Political Web: Media, Participation and Alternative Democracy. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 94. ISBN 9781137326386.
- ^ "Talking head Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster".
- ^ Dillon, Jeff, and Steve Perez. "Judge denies defense motion to sequester jury," San Diego Union-Tribune, 15 August 2002. Retrieved 22 April 2014.
- ^ "Cable rantings boost ratings". Usatoday.Com. 3 October 2006. Retrieved 8 July 2013.
- ^ a b c d e Katz, James (8 November 2018). "Commentary on News and Participation through and beyond Proprietary Platforms in an Age of Social Media". Media and Communications. 6 (4) – via via Cogitatio Press.
- ^ a b Freelon, Deen; Wells, Chris (14 February 2020). "Disinformation as Political Communication". Political Communication. 37 (2) – via Taylor and Francis.
- ^ a b c d Sunstein, Cass R. (2017). #Republic: divided democracy in the age of social media. Princeton: Princeton university press. ISBN 978-0-691-17551-5.
- ^ a b "Engagement, User Satisfaction, and the Amplification of Divisive Content on Social Media". Knight First Amendment Institute. Retrieved 10 December 2024.
- ^ Bilton, Nick (4 November 2024). "Tech Created Our Toxic Political Landscape, and Only Tech Can Fix It". Vanity Fair. Retrieved 10 December 2024.
- ^ a b c O'Connor, Cailin; Weatherall, James Owen (2019). The misinformation age: how false beliefs spread. New Haven London: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-25185-2.
- ^ Jacob, Dennis; Banisch, Sven (2023). "Polarization in Social Media: A Virtual Worlds-Based Approach". Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation. 26 (3): 11. ISSN 1460-7425.
- ^ Rattner, Nate (8 October 2024). "The Social-Media Influencers Reshaping How Young Americans Get Their Political News". The Wall Street Journal.
- ^ a b "How tech platforms fuel U.S. political polarization and what government can do about it". Brookings. Retrieved 10 December 2024.
- ^ Hindman, Matthew Scott (2020). The internet trap: how the digital economy builds monopolies and undermines democracy (First paperback printing ed.). Princeton Oxford: Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-15926-3.
- ^ a b Huszár, Ferenc; Ktena, Sofia Ira; O’Brien, Conor; Belli, Luca; Schlaikjer, Andrew; Hardt, Moritz (4 January 2022). "Algorithmic amplification of politics on Twitter". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 119 (1): e2025334119. doi:10.1073/pnas.2025334119. PMC 8740571. PMID 34934011.
- ^ Riper, Tom Van. "The Top Pundits In America". Forbes. Retrieved 27 November 2020.
- ^ Riper, Tom Van. "In Pictures: America's Top Pundits". Forbes. Retrieved 27 November 2020.
