When I first started going on TV as a political "pundit" it was unheard of to not have literally years of political experience. If you were "camera ready" it helped. Then it turned into a free-for-all of young women w/no experience but w/ insider boyfriends getting them on TV
https://twitter.com/CheriJacobus/status/1439591090437476352
Putting Roger Ailes' backwash next to David Gergen as if "colleagues" is a disservice to viewers, actual political operatives, and to journalism itself. It's also dangerous since lawmakers do, in fact, adjust how they do their work, in reaction to these pundits. It matters.
I remember one of them offering "analysis" on then-candidate Romney re: Virginia primary: "Romney would really like to win Virginia"(really?? DUH!) and she lliterally had no idea what the strategy was, polling, history, political environment, or how endorsements played.
This same "political analyst" for years on TV didn't know the difference between a presidential caucus and a primary. Or the difference between a committee hearing and a committee markup.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
