Comments on: Study Shows: More Popular Pundits are Less Accurate

By: Ryan

Ryan — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 07:19:49 +0000

Darryl,

I really think you've brought up a very important point, and exploring areas like this where religion, politics, philosophy, etc intersect is exactly what I had hoped this blog would help us do. Back in the day when I was in seminary and reading about prophecies of the last days and all of the false prophets that would arise I used to ask myself, "where are all these false prophets"? It just didn't seem like there were very many people in the world even claiming to be "prophets".

But I think you've made a great observation that false prophets may not use the title "prophet" and they may not even cast their "prophecies" in a religious light. Certainly secular pundits can become false prophets to us if we let them. And allowing their influence to crowd out that of the scriptures, the spirit, the true prophets of God, or even our God-given ability to reason would surely be a mistake.

By: Darryl Pettersen

Darryl Pettersen — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 06:26:00 +0000

DP: I am fascinated by the premise of your cited article. Indeed the Rush Limbaughs and the Michael Moores of the world keenly understand the importance of hyperbole in selling themselves and their ideas. The statistical analysis of the accuracy of their inflated predictions rings true to me.

Those who pretend to know the future, and who do not have the benefit of prophetic gifts, are eventually exposed for what they are—and the blind followers of their bombastic proclamations are too often led down the unforgiving paths of disappointment and despair.

Those of us who faithfully study the scriptures and who read, listen to, and follow the inspired words of the prophets follow a far different path. We can recognize the patterns of destruction in the lives of these false prophets, and will be able to avoid them. The “cycle” repeated so frequently in the Book of Mormon followed a predicable pattern and those in tune with the spirit of prophesy were able to recognize it, and today we can as well.

The cycle: Faithfulness on the part of the members of the church led to living correct principles, which led to their receiving abundant physical and spiritual blessings, which led some to get lifted up in the pride of their hearts, which caused them to seek expensive clothing, homes and other evidences of their manifestly obvious superiority, which led them to ignore Him who was the source of their blessings, which caused them to lose their inspiration and then their blessings, which led to wars and destructions, which led to their being brought down to the depths of despair, which led some to humble themselves and seek the forgiveness of Him who was the source of their original blessings, which led them to repent and to again seek the counsel of their inspired church leaders, which opened the way for them to again receive His blessings, which led them to prosper—and then the cycle would start all over again.

We have the more sure word of prophesy at our disposal. Let’s continue to use it.

By: PatriotGames

PatriotGames — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 20:34:14 +0000

I think this is a very important concept for people to keep in mind these days. Traditional news is dying. Opinion and editorial news used to be the supplement to the actual news, and now it has replaced the news for many people. And unscrupulous news agencies are more than happy to give people more of it. Fox has become an all-pundit-all-the-time network and MSNBC is setting themselves up as the counter. Frankly the growing popularity of these extremist “news” personalities scares me more than anything else going on right now in the country.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 19:24:08 +0000

I’d also hesitate to call him liberal. Back when I watched him he was a libertarian. I don’t know if that’s changed at all. But he’s probably more widely known than Schultz, he certainly exemplifies some of the characteristics of a “hedgehog”, and I’m sure people on the right don’t think too highly of him so he’ll work out perfectly. Good suggestion.

By: JS

JS — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 18:33:07 +0000

Perhaps even Bill Maher, though I hesitate to call him a full fledged pundit.

He can be annoying and try to mess with people’s emotions.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 17:15:30 +0000

How about Ed Schultz? He’s probably a better example. I’ve edited the article accordingly.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 17:11:00 +0000

I have nothing against Rachel Maddow. In fact she went to my high school! I was struggling to think of another commentator on the left who was equivalent to Beck, Limbaugh, and Moore and she was the best I could come up with. There just aren’t quite as many brash, charasmatic pundits on the left and I was trying to keep this article non-partisan. So she was a poor example in this case I’ll admit. If you can think of a better one let me know.

By: JS

JS — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 14:02:37 +0000

So the lowest scorers are those who are confident that they understand the world and can predict its future, they are the type who express anger at those who “do not get it”, they tend to be on one of the farther ends of the political spectrum, they have particular themes that they focus on and which they tend to see everywhere, they form “grand schemes” and conspiracies, and they tend to make extreme and probably startling predictions about the future. Does this sound familiar? These are the Rush Limbaughs and the Michael Moores of the world. The Glenn Becks and the Rachel Maddows

I understand Michael Moore, Rush Limbaugh, & Glenn Beck being on this list but.. Rachel Maddow? She is a much less dramatic speaker. Perhaps there is a good example of her deficiency you can refer me to?