It’s obviously just a conversation piece, meant for water-cooler fodder, but it’s Friday afternoon, and I kind of like mulling over conversation pieces like these.
London’s Telegraph likes to run occasional lists about American politics. It’s latest installment counts down the most influential political pundits in the country.
With the internet revolution and the growing popularity of cable television, the multitude of voices can seem be bewildering and, occasionally, deafening.
The Telegraph today unveils its list of the 50 most influential political pundits to help readers sort through whose opinions matter. These are the people who make voters sit up and take notice. They are the ones who political candidates and campaigns are constantly seeking to woo and influence. They include television presenters, newspaper columnists, bloggers and talking heads.
An added goal, the Telegraph said, was to reward “those with the most potential to influence events over the coming months rather than simply the stalwarts of past years…. While being opinionated did not guarantee consideration, having strong opinions was a key factor. Many important journalists have been left out because they portray themselves as objective and seek to inform rather than persuade.”
Now that I’ve seen who made the list and who didn’t, I’m left with a few questions.
The top 10:
10. Mark Halperin, the political analyst for Time and a ubiquitous television presence
9. David Brooks, the NYT columnist and a ubiquitous television presence
8. Jon Stewart, host of The Daily Show
7. Tim Russert, host of Meet the Press and DC bureau chief of NBC News
6. Matt Drudge, proprietor of the Drudge Report
5. John Harris and Jim Vandehei, founders of Politico.com
4. Rush Limbaugh, radio talk-show host
3. Sean Hannity, Fox News host and radio talk-show host
2. Chris Matthews, host of “Hardball” and the “Chris Matthews Show”
1. Karl Rove, columnist for Newsweek and the Wall Street Journal, analyst for Fox News
Now, putting aside ideological problems and questions of reliability, I’ll gladly concede that most of these guys — all 11 are white men — are, in fact, influential. Mark Halperin is everywhere and is read by everyone. The establishment never misses “Meet the Press.” Most political reporters, for reasons that I’ll never understand, consider Drudge an assignment editor. When Limbaugh barks, his minions jump.
But some of these choices strike me as odd. First, I’m not sure how the Telegraph defines “pundit.” Russert, for example, is rarely, if ever, outwardly opinionated. Stewart is wildly influential — Maureen Dowd recently acknowledged that she takes notes while watching The Daily Show — but I suspect he wouldn’t care for the “pundit” label at all.
Second, some of these choices in the top 10 don’t seem especially powerful. Sean Hannity is a rather mundane, predictable party hack. He’s not “influential” in any meaningful way — he regurgitates Republican talking points for a Republican audience. That’s not influence, it’s boredom. (Consider this: how often does anyone hear anyone say, “Sean Hannity raised a really interest point on that topic….”?)
Similarly, how are clowns like Matthews and Rove likely to “influence events over the coming months”?
And just as an aside, there were three bloggers on the list. Drudge was #6, Andrew Sullivan was #17, and Arianna Huffington was #26. If bloggers count as pundits, it seems to me that Markos, Josh Marshall, and Atrios, among others, are at least as influential in the political world, if not more so, than most of the people in the top 50. (I mean, really. Who’s prepared to argue that Michael Savage, who was #25, has more political influence than TPM? Or Mary Matalin at #49 is more powerful than DailyKos?)
So, what’d you think of the list?