From BOPnews.
Some questions:
Since news has become commodified, why does analysis need the veneer of savvy to be credible? What's the difference, news-wise, between needling your guests (as Tim Russert does) about irrelevant inconsistencies and making funny jokes about them? Why do conventions, which are staged media circuses, deserve serious coverage as if matters will be decided there? Finally, why is being funny about the world inherently less useful than any other form of punditry?