Ambiguous Name: Neocon Newscaster

If we're expanding this from right-wingers to politics in general, maybe we should include non-political pundits too, and just make this Pompous Pundit. I think most of the examples aren't trying to make a political point but are just playing on the loud-mouth, obnoxious nature of these hosts. For example, in Dave Barry's Big Trouble, the radio keeps playing a sports analyst who screams at his opponents and his call-in guests. He fits this trope, other than the political part of it.

Hmmm. It's a possibility, but I don't like it as much as limiting it to political ones (admittedly that's partly because I like the rhythm of Pompous Political Pundit better).

Wrote a page action crowner.

It's hooked.

Oh, cool, that's working again!

Oh, and I just realized I forgot the "leave it as-is" option.

edited 10th May '13 9:40:35 AM by StarSword

If we leave the definition as covering politics (which I'm fine with) is it okay if we add the occasional non-politics example if it plays out the same way? Like, literally write "In a non-politics example, sports pundit John Smith in..." ?

That could work.

I dunno, I have an image of us winding up back in TRS at some point down the line. ("This has an awful lot of non-political examples...")

While political pundits are probably those best known to most folks, non-political ones (or arguably political ones) are common to specific industries. For example Windows vs. Mac gets its share of these sorts of pundits.

Also, try not to get too focused on the way things are today. Don't forget about Historical Fiction and Science Fiction. I'd have to double-check, but I'm pretty sure I remember an example that would fit the revised definition from Poul Anderson's Polesotechnic League series, with a pundit who was actually working for a corporation secretly run by aliens, opposing the hero's Solar Spice and Liquor corporation (because corporations have more power and influence than governments in the Polesotechnic League).

Is this ready to call?

9-2 is a bit too little in vote number.

The crowner's only 4 days old...to be called now, the ratio/vote count would have to be a lot higher.

Yeah, wait at least a week (17th) before looking at the crowner to figure the final outcome (though I suspect this will need a visit to the "crowners needing votes" thread over in... Wiki Talk? I forget, offhand).

Ok, NP. Still, that jiggled the switch and got us some more votes.

Bump?

The current leading option is ambiguous in terms of Speculative Fiction. "Both sides of the aisle" implies there's only two, while in a fictional 'verse, there may be more. Likewise, "conservative and liberal" may be the standard division on our world, but in a fictional 'verse, the division may be quite different, even if there are only two sides.

It gets even trickier if Blue-and-Orange Morality is involved.

Unless we're going to limit this to contemporary works, I can't support any of these options. (And if we are, we should say so, and someone needs to YKTTW the missing supertrope that would cover Speculative Fiction.)

edit: (This is what happens to your brain when you're raised in a household where the walls are covered with SF & Fantasy novels.) :)

edited 18th May '13 1:21:51 PM by Xtifr

The first option is to change this to "pompous political pundit." It's not about specifying two political ideologies - it's about broadening it beyond neocons. Any speculative fiction pompous political pundit would be an example under the new definition.

edited 19th May '13 5:22:53 PM by AmyGdala

I honestly didn't consider that. Rewrote the option to clarify.

edited 18th May '13 6:19:19 PM by StarSword

I'm in favor of the change as proposed (3P). Totally agree w/ Star Sword and appreciate him addressing this.

(Amy, you're wrong on the definition of neocon. The Useful Notes article is correct (and no I didn't write it ). A few minutes on google should clear it up, but I've done some studying on this so feel free to PM me if you want to hash it out.)

Part of the problem is that neocons became heavily associated with the Iraq War and George W Bush, and Bush's original "compassionate conservative" campaign became quickly forgotten post-9/11 (with the possible exception-that-proves-the-rule of the notorious No Child Left Behind). Now liberals pretty much associate "neoconservative" with "conservative" or perhaps "conservative who's lost touch with reality"; their emphasis on defense and Bush's running roughshod on the Constitution are taken for simple hypocrisy rather than an actual point of split with "old" conservativism (which may help explain the libertarian bent the Republican Party has taken with the advent of the Tea Party). Tell them that neocons are actually more liberal than the alternative and they're likely to Heroic BSoD.

But this threatens to go wildly off-topic into an area where the Rule Of Cautious Editing Judgment reigns. Suffice to say that modern American political partisans fail to see any finer distinctions than "us v. them"; all Democrats are closet socialists out to make everyone morally and economically bankrupt, dependent on the government, and in thrall to [the Nazis/Soviets/UN/terrorists/Chinese/insert perceived enemy here] because they hate America, all Republicans are neocons out to repress everyone at home and conquer everyone abroad in the name of the 1%.

edited 20th May '13 11:47:12 PM by MorganWick

Which is where the confusion that resulted in the original title and description came from.

Bump for votes.

Calling this one for the winning option. Make it so.

OK, Alt Names crowner here.

That one's hooked.

Bump for votes.

Bump again.