Free Economy

I used to think that being a sports commentator was the best job, in terms of low demand to high compensation.  I still think it is high in the ranking.  (It obviously takes no particular intelligence or knowledge, nor an ability to speak or write well.  TV commentators are often quite amusing -- the "commentary" rarely managing to go beyond remarking upon what has just transpire on the screen -- 'X hit the shot and now his or her team leads' is almost as complex and insightful as it ever gets.)  But there is an even better job on this scale of overcompensated: political commentary on television.  The close of the primaries got me watching political coverage on the networks (mostly CNN, but others as well).  What a collection of chatterboxes.  Apparently all one needs to do is memorize bits and pieces of the campaign emails -- recite without consideration whatever silly thing is being passed off by whichever camp one wants to promote for the day.  (And, they get clothing allowances.)  One might expect that these folks have some basic background knowledge of the political processes they report on, some grasp of recent history (20 years say), and the ability to formulate a thought on their own.  Not so.  With a couple of exceptions, political history is no more than six months, there is almost no information about the actual campaign processes, and no ability to do anything but repeat what other say.  It sad that one has to go back to the Reagan advisers to find folks who can consistently say things that are perspicacious. 

Comments

[Q the Enchanter]

"With a couple of exceptions, political history is no more than six months..."

You're too charitable. For contemporary pundits, six months is deep time.

[Leilani]

Good for people to know.