The banality of political analysts

The term political analyst has never been so trivialised as it is today, especially since media moguls took over the airwaves and television became a government mouthpiece, turning a blind eye to corruption within political parties and the state.

But how much responsibility do we, as journalists, bear for the spread of this trivialisation? We must take full responsibility for carelessly inflating titles and throwing around words such as expert , political analyst and renowned at individuals whose linguistic and intellectual inadequacies are glaringly evident in their inability to formulate ideas and draw conclusions amidst this confusing and contradictory mix of events.

Those interested in politics, like those studying sociology and the natural sciences, collect data and form ideas that seem useful to them. However, they are far more cautious about turning predictions into facts as if they are going to happen tomorrow so that their conclusions do not become empty promises, leading either to irrelevant assumptions´-or-the construction of misleading theories.

Political analysis emerged alongside behavioural culture studies under the assumption that the political system integrates all activities through which social policy is formulated and implemented. The American political scientist David Easton once defined political behaviour as the authoritative allocation of values , and, according to the ethical authorisation they receive from the TV channel, a political analyst is also subject to the authority of values.

However, this is often not the case when a political analyst becomes just another mouthpiece for governments and businesspeople, trivialising their role by justifying the paid journalistic services offered by TV channels to politicians´-or-governments.

Politics is arguably one of the most challenging social phenomena to theorise about. However, theories abound. In fact, many competing theories attempt to explain´-or-guide political choices. According to a systematic analysis by Cambridge University students, matters are further complicated by the fact that political theories range between normative theories ( what ought to be ) and positive theories ( what is ). Because politics is complex and political theories involve both positive and normative elements, newcomers often find it difficult to know where to start´-or-what to believe.

The dominant intellectual school in political science used to be Rational Choice Theory, which held that history and culture had no bearing on understanding political behaviour. Instead, it sufficed to know the interests of those involved, assuming that they would seek to fulfil them rationally. However, it was heavily criticised and largely rejected as an abstract concept with no significant explanatory´-or-predictive power. Politicians are endlessly opportunistic, and those who scrutinise their performance should not be more opportunistic than they are!

Television, on the other hand, was once a governance tool when it was local, used by governments as a means of warning and instilling fear. But once it became a satellite medium, it turned into a tool for empty chatter and a race to degrade the language with nonsense. Unfortunately, the journalistic code of ethics suffers in all of this, for both the host and the guest.

Has the Arab world entered the era of political analysis through submission to governments, power brokers, sects, religions, grave diggers, pimps and the ultra-wealthy, now that television has been handed over to them devoid of intellectual value´-or-the ability to generate public opinion based on logic?

Amidst this disillusionment, viewers no longer watch television with their eyes, but with their instincts. Viewers behave as if they are actual partners in what is being broadcast. If the discussion is political, they never stop interrupting speakers, ridiculing their words´-or-accusing them of ignorance and lying, as if they were participants in the broadcast studio!

Rate the article
Bad	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	Very good
Result : 100%							Participated in the vote : 1