Having followed media punditry for a little while, I’m approaching the conclusion that most journalism pundits fall into one of these quadrants:

Right + Good-natured: The rarest of media critics. They consistently put forth good, knowledgeable insights without feeling the need to deliver them like a fist to the face. They care about journalism, and it shows, but they can also accept the possibility that people can arrive at different conclusions than them in an intelligent discussion without being idiots. Their writings take on a constructive tone by focusing on finding solutions, not harping on others’ mistakes or deriding those pursuing a different path to the future than them. However, their good nature sometimes means their voices are drowned out by the next group.

Right + Ass-clowns: This breed of critics has keen ideas, but their message gets overshadowed by the wrapper of arrogance and snobbery in which it is delivered. To them, every debate has two sides: Their side, and the side that’s wrong. Their style occupies so much of the spotlight that it gets in the way of their substance, so much so that sometimes you can’t tell what’s more important to them, journalism or self-promotion. You know they make some good points, but they act like such self-important, arrogant attention-whores that you feel inclined to disagree with them just on principle. Sadly, this is often the most widely read group, since there’s no better way to draw attention to yourself online than acting, or writing, like an ass. If someone can create a 3D graph, it would be interesting to add a Z-axis to plot a pundit’s reach to see if nice guys really do finish last.

Wrong + Good-natured: These are good people, and you can tell from their writing that they care deeply about journalism, which is why you bury your face in your hands when you read their pieces and realize how clueless they sound and you know they are setting themselves up for ridicule, usually from the “Right + Ass-clowns” group or this next crop.

Wrong + Ass-clowns: The worst of them all. These pundits try to make up with noise what they lack in real knowledge. They see the “Right + Ass-clowns” pundits’ success and try to emulate them, but can only match them in the ass-clownery department. Their so-called analysis are shallow and laughable, yet their heads are too deeply buried in their own self-importance to realize it. Even more unfortunate is the fact that, because they act like jerks, they are rewarded by attention from many of the same people who pay attention to the “Right + Ass-clowns” group. Sometimes it makes you mad enough that you want to build a woodshed on Second Life and drag them behind it.

Note that these aren’t black-and-white, either-or categories. We all fall somewhere on those scales, not on either sides of clear-cut dividing lines. If I were to plot myself, I would say it would be something like the graph to the right. I’m definitely good-natured, which is why I’m resisting the temptation to actually plot anybody else. If I plot the “Right + Good-natured” ones, then I would feel duty-bound to plot the ass-clowns as well, and you can imagine where that’ll lead. This post just isn’t worth making enemies over. As for the right/wrong scale, I suppose no one ever actually thinks they are wrong more often than they are right, though I don’t think I can in good conscience move my mug much farther to the right, into actual “knowledgeable” or “insightful” territory.

Plot away. Have fun.