The Washington Post is having a pundit contest to find "America's next great pundit." As a longtime talking head wanna-be, I'll probably be unable to resist the urge to send an entry. As I thought about this earlier on my commute, it seemed to me that pundits have gone from analysts to guides, maybe even gurus for some, and that's just for those who take them seriously. For others they are entertainers, space & time fillers, or "nattering nabobs of negativism" (which I now know was actually coined by Bill Safire).
I think, ironically, that maybe the effort to make people think, either in general or to persuade on a specific issue, may best be left to artists. These days it seems impossible to sustain general credibility as an analyst, whereas for artists it seems like we more often let the art speak for itself and to tell us or teach us what it will without as much concern for its creator.
Maybe I'll submit a poem?