It's entertainment. Just like people who like sports want to be able to watch TV shows about sports and people who like women in bikinis want to be able to watch TV shows about women in bikinis, people who like politics want to be able to watch TV shows about politics. The pundits exist to fill that need.

Politely, Ezra, that's crap. Politics is not sports for nerds, or - despite the cliche - Hollywood for ugly people. Why we watch matters nearly as much as what we watch. People watch "girls in bikinis" (not my taste, but Brad Pitt will do... in a pinch) to not be challenged to think. People watch sports to celebrate the competitive spirit. People watch politics - at least so far as I can tell - to be informed. And what we assume - or at least tend to until experience proves us wrong - is that a "policy expert" knows something we don't know. Pundits have credibility, and how they squander that credibility is a choice, their choice, and clearly, success serves to undermine it. I remember a number of the current eminent pundits back when they were young, interesting, energetic reporters. I remember when Sam Donaldson actually had some insight into how the Reagan Administration operated. I remember when Paul Gigot was an essayist capable of interesting insight. I don't remember any of this in regards to David Brooks... but never mind. The point of that clip - at elast what I saw in the opening, is that Krugman actually knows what he's talking about and O'Reilly is an ass. We've known that. It's not new. It's why I have basically no use for O'Reilly or his show or many of the guests he brings on. Yes, O'Reilly's shouting is meant to entertain and to appeal to an audience, which, apparently, it does. But I'd submit that the people who watch it don't watch it for politics, or even necessarily to be informed - they watch it to be reminded, yet again, that they are right to hold the prejudices and beliefs they hold. That's the trouble with our splintered media - too many people can find just what - and only what - they need to prove themselves right, not to be challenged, and not to be more informed. I don't have an answer... but don't tell me I watch politics because it's like wanting to watch bikinis. That's ridiculous.

Mr? Its Dr. Krugman, you dick.

I just watched the russert Krugman reilly tape . I have to point out despite this avuncular piece , that you will still get those far far left hit jobs painting unka bill as tetchy .
I know ! un bill eve a bill !

But all this suggests that political punditry has something to do with accuracy. It doesn't. It's entertainment.

True enough for TV punditry. But how about newspaper pundits? How can most of the op-ed writers at the Washington Post be so bad, and so painfully boring, at the same time?