I’ve subscribed to our local newspaper (yes, in print) for maybe 35 years. Every day they have an op-ed page with various columnist’s opinions. I don’t even need to read them anymore to know what they’ll say — I just look at the byline. When their opinions become so predictable, what is the point?
Newspapers publish such articles to:
- Attempt to sway opinion
- Entertain
- Generate outrage (which is essentially a form of entertainment for many)
Maybe they’re targeting the people who are in their first few years of reading op eds.
For the same reason I read things on the straight dope. Sometimes I learn about something I was unaware of, sometimes I see a new way of thinking about something, sometimes I’m entertained, sometimes I get my recreational outrage on.
Just because I know that the posts of Little_Nemo are going to be left wing, and those of pkbites are rightwing doesn’t mean there is no point to reading them.
There’s a fourth reason,. specifically for op-eds. The newspaper can claim it’s providing a diverse set of opinions and not just the same old liberal/conservative bias its critics accuse it of. The fact that most of the columnists you see in a mainstream newspaper range from slightly to the left to slightly to the right is immaterial.
Fifth reason: they’re not written for people who disagree, to change their minds; they’re written for people who already agree, but who need to be supplied with facts (or “facts”) and arguments that they can then recycle when advocating their chosen position.
I’m trying to avoid recreational outrage. Doctor’s orders: I need to reduce my blood pressure.
I only use outrage for medical purposes.
Even the liberal/leftist columnists don’t give me comfort anymore. Instead of thinking “Hmm, that’s a good point”, I now think “That’s what he always says.”
I suspect that’s what a lot of readers want.
IMO for good columnists their opinions become predictable just because they have to write a column every week regardless of whether they have a new point. I only really read the online pubdits but I thinj we’re far from the point where they have nothing insightful to say.
It’s to provide content to those who want to pay for it. Presumably it’s a money making endeavor. Or it’s subsidized work by those who want to spread a particular point of view.
Yes, how else can they sustain the Outrage of the Day?
To slap a coat of information on the reader’s uninformed opinion? Like when the majority votes down a party that’s otherwise convinced of their rightful mandate, it’s pundits remind us that we’re not a direct democracy but a representative republic.
George F. Will was the master of this. Buckley draped it in Latin incantations which went over everyone’s head, but Will could always say “fuck you, progress” in the most reasonable way.
[quote="Buck_Godot, post:4, topic:965930, full:true"]
For the same reason I read things on the straight dope. Sometimes I learn about something I was unaware of, sometimes I see a new way of thinking about something, sometimes I’m entertained, sometimes I get my recreational outrage on.
Just because I know that the posts of Little_Nemo are going to be left wing, and those of pkbites are rightwing doesn’t mean there is no point to reading them.
[/quote]
All this. But at the same time, far too many people need to be told what to think or how to feel to be a true loyal member to the party. Which I think is problematic to say the least. Not sure if there’s a fix for that.
Well … confirmation bias doesn’t feed itself, y’know:
Couple that with the profit motive, and I think that’s the bulk of it.
You’re lucky if the op-eds you encounter are just mild, predicable opinions from an individual. In my experience, op-eds are a propaganda outlet, basically written by a flavor of lobbyist (sometimes, but not always, in a legal sense). The propaganda might be political, or corporate, or from a union, etc. It’s all utterly dishonest and makes no effort to present a balanced picture. It disgusts me even–perhaps especially–when I agree with the underlying position.
What Cervaise said. A pundit’s job is to make your argument for you, better than you yourself could - and then give you a link that you can share on your social media to spread the word.
Say you hate trans people, or guns, or young-earth Creationism, or abortion, or illegal immigrants, but can’t quite put a finger on why, or articulate it effectively. Then here comes a pundit who expresses your inner thoughts on your behalf and does so with good prose and cited sources. Ta-da!
I wonder if it’s also a way to float trial balloons: if a pundit puts out an unusual take that proves unpopular — well, so what? That pundit said a thing that didn’t catch on, and full stop; but if it gets a surprisingly positive reception — shucks, ostensible leaders who are up for election can then do that bit where they find a crowd that’s heading in a direction and get in front of it, right?
Maybe one reason I don’t understand it is that I rarely — practically never — discuss politics on social media. So I feel no incentive to “bulk up” my talking points.