Finally?
Maureen Dowd's article in the New York Times today is an eye-opener. Did the pundits all think they were immune to outsourcing? Did they really think their input was so invaluable that they'd forever command little bully pulpits at handsome wages?
To read her article about Pasadena Now, an online newspaper that has outsourced its Pasadena, CA coverage to writers in India, go to:
http://www.nytimes.com/...
Is the pundit class finally waking up to the corporate mantra of the past 8 years? The mantra that says that if it's mostly done in front of a computer, it can be done elsewhere less expensively?
I'm tempted to laugh myself breathless! Did the pundits really believe they were immune to this trend? Or were they all good with it, as long as they could sit back and point at all the other jobs it affected - as long as it didn't affect their own jobs?
You know, for people who are supposed to be able to see the bigger trends in our society, pundits remind me of street sweepers cleaning up the elephant manure after a parade. I suspect that many of them wouldn't recognize the leading edge of a trend if it slapped them upside the head.
At least now they'll have the personal satisfaction of knowing that being good at what you do (?), being articulate, and having decades of experience in one's field is as richly rewarded for them, as it's becoming everywhere else in America.