Making Criminals into Pundits

**JAD_333** · 08 Jul 12,, 23:44

I have always been dismayed at the willingness of the major TV news organization to hire on celebrated white collar criminals as regular pundits on panels and even as hosts of news shows. As this article points out Washington is chock full of health care experts. So why seek Abramhoff's take on the issue? Yeah, we know the reason: Ratings. It's no secret TV news is geared to enhance the bottom line. But hiring criminals to act as pundits strikes me as whoring big time. Should we care?

BBC News - Jack Abramoff on CNN: Why does US TV book bad guys?

On Thursday, Abramoff joined presenter Soledad O'Brien, New Yorker writer Ryan Lizza and others to analyse the recent US Supreme Court decision ratifying President Barack Obama's healthcare reform law....

Washington is packed with lobbyists, many of whom actually specialise in healthcare and the vast majority of whom, to say the least, have not been convicted in historic corruption scandals.

CNN's decision to book Abramoff on a morning news panel illustrates the contempt its producers have for its audience, says Ron Powers, a Pulitzer Prize-winning television critic.

"It's a way of saying to the viewer: 'We put this guy on the air not because he has any particular expertise, but because we have a strong suspicion you don't read much, and here is a name that you can maybe titter over,'" he says.

People kn

ow Abramoff's name, while they are unlikely to know a better informed, less notorious healthcare lobbyist, analysts say.

**Double Edge** · 09 Jul 12,, 11:26

Originally Posted by JAD_333

So why seek Abramhoff's take on the issue?

BBC News - Jack Abramoff on CNN: Why does US TV book bad guys?

Americans believe everybody should get a second chance

Abramoff was the cheapest they could find.

The decline of public moral standards that can facilitate a convicted criminal like Abramoff's redemption on television news began with the moral relativism of the 1960s, says sociologist John Macionis of Kenyon College in Ohio.

"We live in a world where it's much harder to define good guys and bad guys," he says.

In the 1960s, the loud public rejection of the War in Vietnam, the civil rights movement, the birth of the women's liberation movement, and other social phenomena led to a rejection of conventional value hierarchies, Macionis says.

The subsequent pervasion of moral relativism created an atmosphere that made people uncomfortable passing judgement on crooks, he says.

"The so-called conventional good guys, we started to think they may be really bad guys," Macionis says. "And the bad guys: they could be seen as just saying 'hell no, we won't take it any more. [Being a bad guy] doesn't seem to disqualify anyone anymore."

Is it true that its much harder to define good & bad guys ?

Isn't it more a question of being informed & aware.

**JAD_333** · 09 Jul 12,, 15:14

Originally Posted by Double Edge

Americans believe everybody should get a second chance

He wasn't a pundit to start with. So this isn't about whether he gets a second chance at punditry. If he came on in some redeeming format, like a program about the mysterious world of lobbying, that would be in line with his experience. But to hire him on to jawbone on air about all sorts of major issues is less about his expertise and more about his criminal celebrity. You can be sure people aren't going to watch him because he's a great intellect with valuable insight into the major issues of the day. He's a curiosity who will draw viewers, and that translates into ad dollars.

Is it true that its much harder to define good & bad guys ?

I don't think so. CNN hired him precisely because he is one of the bad guys.

Isn't it more a question of being informed & aware.

If it was, then CNN and the other news organizations would tap only real experts, of which there are many. 'Unfortunately' most of them haven't cheated their clients and bribed public officials, and spent time in jail for it. Boring.

**Double Edge** · 09 Jul 12,, 15:49

Then this is a question of ethics, as you said in your OP..

Is it right 'to hire on celebrated white collar criminals as regular pundits on panels and even as hosts of news shows' ?

Originally Posted by JAD_333

But to hire him on to jawbone on air about all sorts of major issues is less about his expertise and more about his criminal celebrity. You can be sure people aren't going to watch him because he's a great intellect with valuable insight into the major issues of the day. He's a curiosity who will draw viewers, and that translates into ad dollars.

I don't think so. CNN hired him precisely because he is one of the bad guys.

If it was, then CNN and the other news organizations would tap only real experts, of which there are many. 'Unfortunately' most of them haven't cheated their clients and bribed public officials, and spent time in jail for it. Boring.

ok, so there is no connection to what he did and what he is talking about. So he is not misleading anybody here. There is no glamourising what he was convicted of either.

He is brought on solely as an audience magnet. Because of his notoriety.

if they are using pundits that have no expertise in what they are talking about then there is no value in what he says. The network does not think its viewers watch to be informed. Its like they figure people are curious to know what a crook thinks about day to day issues. Sometimes they can be very entertaining with unorthodox ideas.

But no, otherwise i cannot think of a reason why he should not be on there. It seems like a question of taste.

The mantra nowadays is if it makes money and isn't illegal then its ok. Its viewer's choice. This moral relativism puts the responsibility of what is acceptabe or not in their lap instead of preaching to them.

There is still this thought whether CNN is slackening here. One thinks of them as an important news org. Will their reputation be affected by such tactics. They saw to the contrary in this case, it could profit them to do it.

BBC can afford to ask these questions because they have a public sponsored model. Not the case for private news orgs the world over.

**JAD_333** · 09 Jul 12,, 16:49

Originally Posted by Double Edge

Then this is a question of ethics, as you said in your OP..

Is it right 'to hire on celebrated white collar criminals as regular pundits on panels and even as hosts of news shows' ?

It's a close run thing. Yes, we should give people second chances. However, a second chance implies a period of time during which the ex-convict earns back the trust of society. There is no instant rehabilitation. I don't blame Abramoff for taking the CNN job; he needs to make an honest living. CNN's motives are more questionable.

ok, so there is no connection to what he did and what he is talking about. So he is not misleading anybody here. There is no glamourising what he was convicted of either.

He is brought on solely as an audience magnet. Because of his notoriety.

That's a fair summary, at least in terms of outward appearances.

if they are using pundits that have no expertise in what they are talking about then there is no value in what he says. The network does not think its viewers watch to be informed. Its like they figure people are curious to know what a crook thinks about day to day issues. Sometimes they can be very entertaining with unorthodox ideas.

Yes, I know I am curious. I'll give him a look-see, but more like a fly under a microscope or an exhibit in Madame Tussaud's Wax Museum.

The unmentioned mantra nowadays is if it makes money and isn't illegal then its ok. Its viewer's choice.

I take issue with is the "nowadays"...

**gunnut** · 11 Jul 12,, 01:18

Al Sharpton has a show on MSNBC.

Marion Berry was elected mayor.

Ted Kennedy was a senator.

So was Robert Byrd.

A druggie, a drunken killer, and a racist...we save our best for government work.

**Roosveltrepub** · 11 Jul 12,, 05:37

Originally Posted by gunnut

Al Sharpton has a show on MSNBC.

Marion Berry was elected mayor.

Ted Kennedy was a senator.

So was Robert Byrd.

A druggie, a drunken killer, and a racist...we save our best for government work.

Marion Barry being the only one conicted? Althought Sharpton's role in Tawana Brawley would be reprehensible and criminal if he had been proven to know she was lying. I could easily throw out Daryl Issa who there really is as much doubt to his guilt for arson for profit as there is for Kennedy's charges of drunken driving murder....of course it was coincidence he dramatically upped his fire insurance days before and removed a computer the night before a suspicious fire....then there is that troubling incident where before firing an employee he pulled a gun out and then fired him at gunpoint... he doesnt remember but others do. then there are all his weapons arrest and that troubling auto theft arrest but innocent till proen guilty as long as a conservative right? We have Allen West who can't go to Spain or he'd end up in the Hague for what were actions outside his orders and he admits doing them and well they were actually war crimes and he was given a graceful exit to pursuer commies in congress and free us from social security. Oh and lets not forget damn near every moral majority leader was right there with Byrd. Also who can forget briebart and his flunkie...of course Briebart had no knowledge of the felonies his paid flunky whoose name isn't worth mentioning were commiting.

The we have the true patriots G Gordon Liddy and Ollie North...... who have had extremely succussful careers predicated on their not white collar crimes but crimes against their country. Gunut I have to say you picked a list of sketchy charactors but subjorning the constitution and war crimes seem a tad more relevant to the question of someone's loyalty to "real America"

As to Abramoff he was the fall guy for a culture of corruption from 2000-2006. Just the casino thing had other players who avoided conviction. Abramoff was a sacrifical cow to end an era

**Double Edge** · 11 Jul 12,, 11:17

Originally Posted by gunnut

A druggie, a drunken killer, and a racist...we save our best for government work.

A common sentiment worldwide.

But tell me, can you top this

Phoolan Devi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

**JAD_333** · 11 Jul 12,, 16:43

Originally Posted by Roosveltrepub

As to Abramoff he was the fall guy for a culture of corruption from 2000-2006. Just the casino thing had other players who avoided conviction. Abramoff was a sacrifical cow to end an era

Yeah, but that's not the point. Is he a pundit worthy of our attention, and is the public well served when a major news outlet uses an ex-con as a curiosity to draw higher TV ratings?

BTW, Issa is not a TV pundit, just an over-zealous politician, not that one is worse than the other.