I am planning to introduce 4 more pundits to the mix. At this stage it will be 2 Blue Team and 2 Read Team pundits. I'm looking to add more independent pundits as well so i'm accepting nominations, I can't seem to to think of any. Does Michael Savage count as an independent to you guys?
At any rate I'm accepting nominations for the pundits you want to see added to the APF.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
PunditFight: Glossary of Terms
In case there are people who haven't checked out the Companion PunditFight Myspace page. As a service I'm posting the Glossary of Terms found on that site here. I've also included some new terms. Enjoy!
Glossary of terms
Like most subcultures the APF has its own jargon, an amalgam of elements borrowed from the world of wrestling and politics.
Here are a list of words you’ll find used in the APF. In the future I hope to link to video examples to further illustrate the terms.
-------------------------------------
angle n. The “storyline”. It may happen over one debate or many and the pundits do not necessarily have to meet. Often the escalation of events occur when the pundits are on their respective shows
base n. people who already agree with a pundit. Those who already watch their shows, buy their books and read their blogs. It is important for the pundit to indulge this audience as they are the loyal core of support
blogosphere n. the set of weblogs on the internet, in this case political. They may be written diaries, discussion boards or Video journals
booker n. the party who invites and sets the tone for the debate. This can be cordial late night talk show appearances, or heated interrogations on a radio show
card n. the series of debates appearing on the program at one time
draw v.t.n. the popularity of a pundit. Popularity is judged by the amount of people tuning in to see the pundit speak their mind. This may be the ratings of their respective TV and radio shows, the columns, blogs and books they write. The spike they create in ratings when they appear on other programs. The attention they receive from the news media and the blogosphere
dud n. A particularly bad and totally uninteresting debate
entrance theme n. a piece of music that heralds the arrival of a pundit, usually played at the start their TV or radio show. The song is a reflection of the pundit's personality and fanbase.
face n. & adj. [babyface] a pundit well loved by his audience, hero-like. This can be achieved by being receptive to the audience, championing popular ideas or opposing a detestable character
feud n. a series of debates between two pundits. It can be a civil encounter, multiple invitations to discuss current events possibly on a contract basis. It can also be heated, the eventual confrontation when two pundits have baited each other and finally meet
gimmick n. a pundit's personality. The behavior and distinguishing traits apparent while performing, this will often dictate whether a pundit is a Face or a Heel
heat n. Enthusiastic negative response. Controversy can often lead to exposure, by negative referencing and discussion on blogs, the news media and radio. The attention may lead to more invitations for TV and radio appearances
heel n. & adj. a pundit who brings attention to themselves by intentionally alienating or discomforting viewers. Someone who generates ‘heat’. They may be offensive generalizations or unpopular truths told without tact
job n. Losing a debate on purpose by staging it convincingly
jobber n. a weaker pundit brought in to make a debate opponent look comparitively better. It is usually an inexperienced and less charming person
kayfabe n. adj. of or related to inside information about the business, especially by fans. This can be backstory on the debaters’ history, past connections and affiliations
mark n. an audience member who takes everything their favorite pundit says at face value, often regurgitating there talking points. They are usually gullible and uninquisitive, not interested in sourcing different opinions that may discredit said talking points
midcarder n. adj. a personality not quite in the elite group of pundits due to lesser name recognition or audience pulling power.
main-eventer n. adj. an elite pundit, a household name. Commanding larger audiences, fees and media attention
pop n, v.i. positive enthusiastic response to a pundit. Their debates are recorded and featured on blogs and video sites. Their work referenced positively on radio and TV. Audience frequently complimenting when they call in their radio shows. High volume of readership, listernership and exposure
promo n. an organized discussion or speech used to escalate a storyline or feud. It may involve baiting or impugning another pundit in the hope of a confrontation
pundit n. adj. a person who appears in the media offering opinions, analysis or discourse on a subject. Unlike journalists who are expected to be objective when reporting, pundits can provide context and an ideological perspective to highlight the important aspects of the issue for the public
punditocracy n. a term coined by Nation columnist Eric Alterman. It describes the growing influence of a "tiny group of highly visible political pontificators who make their living offering 'inside political opinions and forecasts' in the elite national media." It refers to the notion that politicans no longer seek the approval of the people as it is being eclipsed by the pundit class who are the noisiest and have the last word. This is considered dangerous by some because pundits are not always representative of the community (they are broad by nature) and are subject to personal ambitions such as advancing their status and influence
push n. a personality who starts getting promoted heavily, seen to have potential. A network may give them their own show or a better timeslot.
screw-job n. adj. a debate or ending which is not clean (definite) due to factors outside the normal course of a debate
shoot n. when a pundit breaks the expected decorum of a debate and becomes unfairly hostile, usually to satisfy their base. It may be pressuring someone to answer a loaded question, bringing up something negative from the interviewee’s past irrelevant to a debate
smark n. a political junkie, someone who follows politics attentively. They will read messageboards, blogs and listen to as much media as possible. The depth of exploration makes them more discerning and skeptical. The opposite of a ‘mark’
spot n. The high-point. An event or sequence of events which makes a particular debate distinctive
squash n. a totally passive job where one pundit completely dominates another. v.t. to win a squash match
stable n. A group of pundits working together for the same cause. An alliance
stiff adj. Not quite a shoot, but almost. It involves someone who doesn’t return the same cordiality to a fellow pundit. A stiff worker will act more serious and aggressive to a pundit who may be being light hearted creating an imbalance in attitude
turn n., v.i. change in orientation from heel to face or vice-versa
work n. a deception or sham, the opposite of a shoot. When a pundit sympathetic to his interviewee creates a false appearance of asking tough questions. Usually when a personality needs to do damage control, an agreeable pundit may get an ‘exclusive’ to interview them
workrate n. how hard the pundit works. How often they venture into varying mediums; writing blogs, appearing in debates and interviews on top of their day-to-day job
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For those who'd like to compare, here is a list of Pro wrestling terms.
Glossary of terms
Like most subcultures the APF has its own jargon, an amalgam of elements borrowed from the world of wrestling and politics.
Here are a list of words you’ll find used in the APF. In the future I hope to link to video examples to further illustrate the terms.
-------------------------------------
angle n. The “storyline”. It may happen over one debate or many and the pundits do not necessarily have to meet. Often the escalation of events occur when the pundits are on their respective shows
base n. people who already agree with a pundit. Those who already watch their shows, buy their books and read their blogs. It is important for the pundit to indulge this audience as they are the loyal core of support
blogosphere n. the set of weblogs on the internet, in this case political. They may be written diaries, discussion boards or Video journals
booker n. the party who invites and sets the tone for the debate. This can be cordial late night talk show appearances, or heated interrogations on a radio show
card n. the series of debates appearing on the program at one time
draw v.t.n. the popularity of a pundit. Popularity is judged by the amount of people tuning in to see the pundit speak their mind. This may be the ratings of their respective TV and radio shows, the columns, blogs and books they write. The spike they create in ratings when they appear on other programs. The attention they receive from the news media and the blogosphere
dud n. A particularly bad and totally uninteresting debate
entrance theme n. a piece of music that heralds the arrival of a pundit, usually played at the start their TV or radio show. The song is a reflection of the pundit's personality and fanbase.
face n. & adj. [babyface] a pundit well loved by his audience, hero-like. This can be achieved by being receptive to the audience, championing popular ideas or opposing a detestable character
feud n. a series of debates between two pundits. It can be a civil encounter, multiple invitations to discuss current events possibly on a contract basis. It can also be heated, the eventual confrontation when two pundits have baited each other and finally meet
gimmick n. a pundit's personality. The behavior and distinguishing traits apparent while performing, this will often dictate whether a pundit is a Face or a Heel
heat n. Enthusiastic negative response. Controversy can often lead to exposure, by negative referencing and discussion on blogs, the news media and radio. The attention may lead to more invitations for TV and radio appearances
heel n. & adj. a pundit who brings attention to themselves by intentionally alienating or discomforting viewers. Someone who generates ‘heat’. They may be offensive generalizations or unpopular truths told without tact
job n. Losing a debate on purpose by staging it convincingly
jobber n. a weaker pundit brought in to make a debate opponent look comparitively better. It is usually an inexperienced and less charming person
kayfabe n. adj. of or related to inside information about the business, especially by fans. This can be backstory on the debaters’ history, past connections and affiliations
mark n. an audience member who takes everything their favorite pundit says at face value, often regurgitating there talking points. They are usually gullible and uninquisitive, not interested in sourcing different opinions that may discredit said talking points
midcarder n. adj. a personality not quite in the elite group of pundits due to lesser name recognition or audience pulling power.
main-eventer n. adj. an elite pundit, a household name. Commanding larger audiences, fees and media attention
pop n, v.i. positive enthusiastic response to a pundit. Their debates are recorded and featured on blogs and video sites. Their work referenced positively on radio and TV. Audience frequently complimenting when they call in their radio shows. High volume of readership, listernership and exposure
promo n. an organized discussion or speech used to escalate a storyline or feud. It may involve baiting or impugning another pundit in the hope of a confrontation
pundit n. adj. a person who appears in the media offering opinions, analysis or discourse on a subject. Unlike journalists who are expected to be objective when reporting, pundits can provide context and an ideological perspective to highlight the important aspects of the issue for the public
punditocracy n. a term coined by Nation columnist Eric Alterman. It describes the growing influence of a "tiny group of highly visible political pontificators who make their living offering 'inside political opinions and forecasts' in the elite national media." It refers to the notion that politicans no longer seek the approval of the people as it is being eclipsed by the pundit class who are the noisiest and have the last word. This is considered dangerous by some because pundits are not always representative of the community (they are broad by nature) and are subject to personal ambitions such as advancing their status and influence
push n. a personality who starts getting promoted heavily, seen to have potential. A network may give them their own show or a better timeslot.
screw-job n. adj. a debate or ending which is not clean (definite) due to factors outside the normal course of a debate
shoot n. when a pundit breaks the expected decorum of a debate and becomes unfairly hostile, usually to satisfy their base. It may be pressuring someone to answer a loaded question, bringing up something negative from the interviewee’s past irrelevant to a debate
smark n. a political junkie, someone who follows politics attentively. They will read messageboards, blogs and listen to as much media as possible. The depth of exploration makes them more discerning and skeptical. The opposite of a ‘mark’
spot n. The high-point. An event or sequence of events which makes a particular debate distinctive
squash n. a totally passive job where one pundit completely dominates another. v.t. to win a squash match
stable n. A group of pundits working together for the same cause. An alliance
stiff adj. Not quite a shoot, but almost. It involves someone who doesn’t return the same cordiality to a fellow pundit. A stiff worker will act more serious and aggressive to a pundit who may be being light hearted creating an imbalance in attitude
turn n., v.i. change in orientation from heel to face or vice-versa
work n. a deception or sham, the opposite of a shoot. When a pundit sympathetic to his interviewee creates a false appearance of asking tough questions. Usually when a personality needs to do damage control, an agreeable pundit may get an ‘exclusive’ to interview them
workrate n. how hard the pundit works. How often they venture into varying mediums; writing blogs, appearing in debates and interviews on top of their day-to-day job
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For those who'd like to compare, here is a list of Pro wrestling terms.
Technical Wrestlers: Hugh Hewitt and Thom Hartmann
In wrestling and punditry, its easy to overlook certain personalities amongst the larger-than-life characters. The more successful personalities are often the more colorful and bombastic. They are the ones who we regularly see invited on programs, given their own shows and asked to write Op-Eds.
They're exposure has more to do with their ability to entertain rather than their record of accuracy or knowledge on the issues (see previous post). In other words presentation trumps substance. This post will be about the personalities who are less about presentation and more about technical ability- The Ring technicians.
Pro wrestling has always valued entertainment highly but it also valued in-ring ability. As wrestling has become more mainstream with far more TV exposure it has created different demands of its wrestlers. Todays' wrestlers are expected to be good showmen with convincing acting ability, skills on the mic (charismatic verbally) and of good size. There are less wrestlers coming out who are schooled in or are interested in displaying the technical, fundamental side of wrestling. Instead they favor power moves, and hardcore use of weapons. This is primarily because its what the audience now come to expect, no more room for subtlety or slow build up in the ring.
Its increasingly hard to find pundits who engage in fruitful debate because of the popular 'Crash TV' formats of most TV and Radio. The small amount of time alloted and the diametrically opposite viewpoints held naturally degenerates into shouting matches. Its the extreme left and extreme right exchanging talking points where the viewer as Stephen Colbert says is left to "mix these two things together and come up with the least informed mishmash of ideas you could possibly have". It makes for great TV but provides little substance.
The reason I bring this whole topic is because of a recent 1.5 hour debate between APF pundit Hugh Hewitt and conservative author/commentator Andrew Sullivan. Its a fascinating interview because there is contempt in the exchange obvious from the outset. But as they mutually agreed to talk for the hour+, they had to resolve their differences via reasoning and old fashioned debating. It's reminiscent of the classic 'Iron Man' matches in wrestling where two wrestlers must duel for 1 hour. These type of matches are usually between technical wrestlers as they are best at sustaining such a long match. There aren't too many pundits who enjoy such vigorous debate and have formats to accommodate it. On the Right I can name Hugh Hewitt and for the Left Thom Hartmann.
I guess technical pundits like technical wrestlers are a dying breed. I highly recommend you listen to the Iron Man match between Hewitt and Sullivan- fascinating! Listen here. Its the Tuesday March 6, 2007 edition of the show.
They're exposure has more to do with their ability to entertain rather than their record of accuracy or knowledge on the issues (see previous post). In other words presentation trumps substance. This post will be about the personalities who are less about presentation and more about technical ability- The Ring technicians.
Pro wrestling has always valued entertainment highly but it also valued in-ring ability. As wrestling has become more mainstream with far more TV exposure it has created different demands of its wrestlers. Todays' wrestlers are expected to be good showmen with convincing acting ability, skills on the mic (charismatic verbally) and of good size. There are less wrestlers coming out who are schooled in or are interested in displaying the technical, fundamental side of wrestling. Instead they favor power moves, and hardcore use of weapons. This is primarily because its what the audience now come to expect, no more room for subtlety or slow build up in the ring.
Its increasingly hard to find pundits who engage in fruitful debate because of the popular 'Crash TV' formats of most TV and Radio. The small amount of time alloted and the diametrically opposite viewpoints held naturally degenerates into shouting matches. Its the extreme left and extreme right exchanging talking points where the viewer as Stephen Colbert says is left to "mix these two things together and come up with the least informed mishmash of ideas you could possibly have". It makes for great TV but provides little substance.
The reason I bring this whole topic is because of a recent 1.5 hour debate between APF pundit Hugh Hewitt and conservative author/commentator Andrew Sullivan. Its a fascinating interview because there is contempt in the exchange obvious from the outset. But as they mutually agreed to talk for the hour+, they had to resolve their differences via reasoning and old fashioned debating. It's reminiscent of the classic 'Iron Man' matches in wrestling where two wrestlers must duel for 1 hour. These type of matches are usually between technical wrestlers as they are best at sustaining such a long match. There aren't too many pundits who enjoy such vigorous debate and have formats to accommodate it. On the Right I can name Hugh Hewitt and for the Left Thom Hartmann.
I guess technical pundits like technical wrestlers are a dying breed. I highly recommend you listen to the Iron Man match between Hewitt and Sullivan- fascinating! Listen here. Its the Tuesday March 6, 2007 edition of the show.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Profile 3: Sean Hannity, Janeane Garofalo
Janeane Garofalo is a comedian, political activist and one-time radio host. Currently Janeane is possibly the least professionally active pundit in the APF. She is best known for her work as a comedian and actor, of note she appeared on TV show The West Wing for 15 episodes as a feisty campaign adviser to the Democratic presidential nominee. Janeane rose to prominence as a pundit in 2003 during the lead up to the Iraq War campaigning on behalf of groups like Move On and Win Without War, appearing in commercials for the latter. Prior to the war she represented one of the few dissenting voices allowed on mainstream media. In March 2004, Janeane co hosted radio program The Majority Report with friend (and fellow APF pundit) Sam Seder, she was regularly absent from the show due to her acting engagements leaving the show finally on July 2006.
Sean Hannity is a Conservative triple threat. He is Executive Producer and co-host of the political debate program Hannity and Colmes (with liberal Alan Colmes) on the Fox News Channel. He also headlines his own show Hannity's America on Sundays. Sean also hosts a 2 hour radio show during the week, conducted before his nightly TV duties. To date Hannity has written two books - Let Freedom Ring: Winning the War of Liberty over Liberalism and Deliver Us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism. Hannity's website can be found at www.hannity.com
Sean has also started his own enterprises including, a dating service for conservatives. Since 2003, Sean has hosted The Annual Freedom Concert featuring conservative speakers and guests to benefit the children of fallen U.S. military servicemen. Sean has also been immortalised in comic book form.
Saturday, March 10, 2007
Pundit State of the Union
In January I promised that I would be making a monthly PPV, featuring a fancy animation and logo covering a particular topic. That didn't work out too well- primarily because of the time needed in churning out an animation whilst dealing with regular posts and daily chores. Looking forward I realistically hope to make at least 5 PPVs a year.
So without further adieu I present the first topic 'The Pundit State of the Union'. It is an interactive animation where you can control the applause of the pundits by rolling over them. You can also activate the entire red and blue teams into applause by rolling over their respective logos.
The State of the Union 2007 (President George W Bush)
So without further adieu I present the first topic 'The Pundit State of the Union'. It is an interactive animation where you can control the applause of the pundits by rolling over them. You can also activate the entire red and blue teams into applause by rolling over their respective logos.
The State of the Union 2007 (President George W Bush)
VIDEO: The Democratic Response (Senator Jim Webb)
Transcript:
The State of the Union 2007 (President George W Bush)
The Democratic Response (Senator Jim Webb)
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
Ann Coulter: Top Heel (wrestling villain)
Wrestlers fall in 2 general categories- Faces and Heels. Faces are the heroes, the wrestlers who the fans cheer for. Today's post will cover the personalities who the crowd boo against, the heel.
In wrestling being booed doesn't mean you're ineffective, in fact its the opposite. Being a convincing villain means you make a compelling entertainer. Heels feed of the crowd's hostile energy (heat), thrilling their small group of supporters and enraging the rest. An effective heel can be just as popular as a good face, they will sell tickets and command center stage. Most are compelled to watch just to see the heel get their comeuppance. There are many ways for a heel to antagonize or lose favor with the audience. They can attack symbols dear to the crowd (wipe their butts with the national flag, ridicule a local hero etc) and they can start a feud with a Face.
Punditry is no different, you will find provocative personalities who intentionally agitate audiences and create controversy. You will see them disavowed on national talk shows, then invited on them within the same week. The greatest heel in the APF and all of punditry without a doubt is Ann Coulter.
This week she caused her latest round of controversy, with her remarks at the CPAC conference- the largest national gathering of conservative thinkers attended this year by Vice President Cheney and all the Republican presidential hopefuls.
Her full speech can be see here: Part 1, then Part 2.
Ann is known for and has made a career on her outrageous commentary. Naturally she is reviled on the left for her insensitivity, though they are hardly surprised. Denounced by some on the right for nullifying any of her good arguments by the use of unnecessary invective. As her outrageousness becomes more common, critics are directing their disgust at the media outlets who continue to invite and legitimize her on their show. She is undoubtedly a big draw, even bigger at times of controversy.
Some Ann Coulter media highlights: Ann being provocative on Bill Clinton, the 9/11 widows and Iraq. Moderate Ann on presidential nominations. The heel getting her comeuppance on Letterman, on a debate and an interview.
In wrestling being booed doesn't mean you're ineffective, in fact its the opposite. Being a convincing villain means you make a compelling entertainer. Heels feed of the crowd's hostile energy (heat), thrilling their small group of supporters and enraging the rest. An effective heel can be just as popular as a good face, they will sell tickets and command center stage. Most are compelled to watch just to see the heel get their comeuppance. There are many ways for a heel to antagonize or lose favor with the audience. They can attack symbols dear to the crowd (wipe their butts with the national flag, ridicule a local hero etc) and they can start a feud with a Face.
Punditry is no different, you will find provocative personalities who intentionally agitate audiences and create controversy. You will see them disavowed on national talk shows, then invited on them within the same week. The greatest heel in the APF and all of punditry without a doubt is Ann Coulter.
This week she caused her latest round of controversy, with her remarks at the CPAC conference- the largest national gathering of conservative thinkers attended this year by Vice President Cheney and all the Republican presidential hopefuls.
VIDEO: Ann Coulter at the CPAC conference 2007
Her full speech can be see here: Part 1, then Part 2.
Ann is known for and has made a career on her outrageous commentary. Naturally she is reviled on the left for her insensitivity, though they are hardly surprised. Denounced by some on the right for nullifying any of her good arguments by the use of unnecessary invective. As her outrageousness becomes more common, critics are directing their disgust at the media outlets who continue to invite and legitimize her on their show. She is undoubtedly a big draw, even bigger at times of controversy.
Some Ann Coulter media highlights: Ann being provocative on Bill Clinton, the 9/11 widows and Iraq. Moderate Ann on presidential nominations. The heel getting her comeuppance on Letterman, on a debate and an interview.
VIDEO: Ann Coulter being discussed on the O'Reilly Factor
Friday, March 2, 2007
Pundit Profile 2: Stephen Colbert, Al Franken
Stephen Colbert is a 3-time Emmy Award winning comedian. He headlines his own Opinion News parody show The Colbert Report, a spin-off show from his time as a popular correspondent on The Daily Show. Stephen Colbert' profile as a political-cultural force was boosted when he was invited to perform at the White House Correspondent's dinner in 2006.
Al Franken is a political commentator and comedian, in February 2007 he announced his bid to run for Minnesota's Senate seat. Franken's presence on the Liberal Air America Radio placed it on the mainstream map. Al has been the subject of a documentary following his journey as a political player. Al has written 3 books, Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot, Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right and The Truth (with jokes).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)