• emax_gomax@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    3 months ago

    I’ll be honest when I read the question I was like “did we ever need them” but reading the comments it all makes sense. I think part of the reason I didn’t see the point is so many pundits I see online just seem to be casual googlers who think reading a bit makes them an expert on the field. You put some random guy who talks with confidence in front of a camera and they can actually build an audience despite being crocked full of sh*t. 100% agree we need actual veteran experts in fields to share objective truth to audiences who’ve inundated with blatant lies.

    • Zonetrooper@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Part of it is that the question is phrased to make you react that way. By using “pundits” as opposed to “commentators” or “analysts”, it primes you to think about someone at Fox (or, these days, Youtube) pounding on a table while screaming about immigrants, as opposed to a respected individual evenhandedly explaining the complexities of a nuanced issue.

      • everett@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        From 1913 Webster’s, to show how “far” we’ve come:

        Pun"dit (?), n. [Hind. pandit, Skr. pandita a learned man.] A learned man; a teacher; esp., a Brahman versed in the Sanskrit language, and in the science, laws, and religion of the Hindoos; in Cashmere, any clerk or native official. [Written also pandit.] [India]

        • Zonetrooper@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          I did not know that is where it came from, but that’s neat (if a touch depressing). Thank you for that info. Fascinating how languages shift.