IMHO: It sounds like TV pundits are speaking directly to 45: N. Korea, Healthcare, etc.

[lindysalsagal]

I'm not basing this on anything except overhearing some political shows in the last week:

I'm personally not happy that TV pundits are claiming they know exactly what to do about our major issues: N. Korea agression, immigration, drugs, police, healthcare, tax reform, election security, and anything else.

I feel like maybe people off the street, who don't have access to real inside information, shouldn't be telling 45 "This is what Putin's thinking, this is the reaction Mexicans will have to a specific action, this is what either party will do about elections".. and on and on.

Just like maybe Kelly anne Conway and the top advisors shouldn't always be allowed to drop in on the pres. and tell him what to do about stuff, maybe he's entirely too accessible by TV pundits, as well.

TV is about collecting eyeballs and selling ads. It's not the place to carve out real policies about foreign countries, economics, healthcare, civil liberties, or anything else. That's why we elected the house and senate: Because they have to listen to us, or we'll fire them.

I feel like maybe I don't want TV pundits shaping policies, since I have no idea where their allegiances lie, and I have no control over them. It's not representative TV punditry: They represent shareholders and ceos, not me.

Am I the only one?

[Atman]

1. Uhm...maybe so far you're the only one.

I'd trust most any tv pundit's observations over that of our current White House occupant. Except, of course, if that pundit gets his/her paycheck signed by Rupert Murdoch.