What Kind of Journalism Pundit Are You?
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.
Sometimes, you just wish some pundits came with a Clapper.
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.
Well, I think you're a good-natured rightie. I come here to get out of the storm.
Simply. Awesome.
I'd put you in the far upper right-hand quadrant, but that's probably heavily influenced by the fact that I agree with you on most things. Regardless of where they fall on the X axis, I wish we could compel everyone further away from the ass-clown quadrants. But many people never learn that how they articulate their views is as important as what their views are.
Thanks, Cory and Michele, for commenting and for the generous grid placement.
Sorry, but this article sounds more like ass-clown than good-natured. Just saying. I'm not personally effected by this article, because I don't see a lot of backbone behind it. Nothing to really make me say "A-HA"! What I do see is a strong bias that seems to be trying to answer the question "Which quadrant do I stand in?"; a big arrow guiding your readers to exactly where you fancy yourself. This unfortunately, makes you look like you've maybe got your head up your ass just far enough. By your own definition, I would put you in the bottom left quadrant. :)
Audrey, assuming your comment is serious and not just an attempt at trolling, first thank you for reading and commenting (unless that, too, adds to my ass-clownness). You're entitled to your opinions and I don't mind people disagreeing with me, though I'd invite you to give some more details to back up the accusations you're making. How is this article lacking backbone (what should it look like if, in your opinion, it had a backbone)? What is this "strong bias" you speak of. Bias against/for what, or whom? Point out specific parts of the piece where I'm drawing the giant arrow.
Thanks for the response, Audrey. Regarding your first point, I'd counter that I did not leave a term such as "ass-clown" open for interpretation. Look at my paragraph about the "Right + Ass clowns" group:
"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."
In it, I clearly identified the characteristics that I'm attributing to that term. You observed correctly that I did not provide any examples of people who I think exhibit those traits. I did that for the same reason I stated in the last paragraph for not plotting anybody except myself on the chart — I just don't think this post is really worth calling people out and making enemies over, and I still believe that. Nonetheless, as I said, I did provide my definition of that term, so I think you have enough there to know what I meant by the term, as well as the parameters for deciding whether someone fits that term. As for who meets that definition, that's a matter of personal opinion anyway. I may think someone is a total jerk while somebody might have a less negative reaction to that person's style.
Regarding your second point — that everyone got a bad review except the top right quadrant, I have a couple thoughts on that point:
1). I didn't just make up four random groups and then define one to be superior to the others. I'm working with two scales here — one on the pundits' knowledge and the other on their personality/nature. Both scales go from low to high, and the four quadrants are formed by splitting the two scales down the middle. In such a situation, there's no doubt that one of the four quadrants is obviously better than the other. That's not something open to interpretation or definition. It's just mathematical fact. I'm not sure how I can honestly say someone on the lower end of one or both scales is just as good as someone on the higher end of both scales.
2). On the point about leading my "loyal readers" to put me in the obviously good quadrant: Of the two "loyal readers" who have commented, one has commented on my blog a total of maybe 3 times, and the other has strongly disagreed with me on Twitter over another subject on another occasion. So I won't exactly say they're "loyal readers" in the sense that I can do no wrong in their eyes, nor do I want such readers. Also, consider it from my perspective: When I post this piece, it's out there for everyone to see, with no guarantee that everyone, or even a majority of the people, who read it would be one of my loyal readers (heck, you're obviously not a loyal reader). So how can I really expect to lead people into putting me in one quadrant or another. Honestly, leading people to place me in a particular quadrant didn't even enter my mind when I wrote the piece. Not sure how I can prove that to you, but it's the truth.
As for where your blog falls in the quadrant, I thank you for the opportunity, but I don't think this scale fits your blog. This was devised for journalism pundits commenting on journalism. At a glance, your blog is about relating your personal experiences. How can I really rate the level of your knowledge of your personal experiences? I can say that from a quick read of your blog, I didn't see anything that jumps out at me as putting you in the ass-clown category.
Thanks again for the comments.