Getting it wrong: How pundits are rewarded for wild predictions

We all need stuff to write about — we crave content and conversation — and so, when someone makes a wild prediction, they have, in a sense, done us a favor. What is more, once we link to — or Tweet — their prediction, we are invested. At this point, we have little incentive to later point out they were in error. Let’s be honest, we are always looking forward — looking for the next story — and so, the past is water under the bridge. Nobody revokes your pundit card…

Still, I fear we are entering into the “boy who cried wolf” phase (if we’re not there already.) What — aside from personal and professional ethics — is stopping me from writing today that “a source close to the Romney campaign” told me Marco Rubio will be named Romney’s running mate this weekend? (After all, they are doing a joint bus tour, and my source tells me Romney is convinced he must make a play for Florida)

It would be overwrought to say that in today’s punditry world, the worst get to the top, but I do fear we have created an environment that encourages wild speculation. As in economics, wild speculation often leads to bursting bubbles.