Not all abundance are like that there are some overlaps. Something I do believe that is essential if you want to be a successful pundit get a lot of airtime is you have to have some kind of identifiable consistent set of core principles. It doesn't mean you have to follow a particular party line doesn't mean you can never have surprising opinions. But people need to have some sense of what you stand for. Now, if you're on a news network, and you talk about politics, typically, that's going to mean you have a consistent set of liberal principles, our conservative principle or libertarian principles, and if you are so called moderate, you've got to be a moderate in a way that's interesting and it doesn't just seem like you're putting your finger in the wind. If you are a legal expert, Nancy Grace is someone where you sort of know where she stands she will reflexively stand up in favor of the victim and anyone is accused, she will bash that person and act as though that person were guilty and should be punished.

I'm not passing judgment on her, I do want you to see how, regardless of your niche, regardless of your industry, if you want to be a pundit, you need to have some identifiable, identifiable set of core principles because this way shows nowhere to put you they know how you can be useful. They know roughly, the concepts you'll Express, it doesn't mean that you know every single thing you're going to say. They don't necessarily want to know every single thing they say. But if they're looking for balance, they're looking for a wide range of opinions. They want to know where different camps are and how they can be represented. Also, if you're going to be a pundit, you have to talk about a wide range of issues.

There's no way you can have written a book on every possible subject that you might be called upon to discuss. There's no way you can know a tremendous amount of detail about every single issue in the news. That's the beauty of having principles and to be able to look at news through the lens of certain core principles, you can then provide an analysis. So that's important if you really are someone who is purely academic and you can't even imagine giving an opinion unless you've studied a topic for six months. Television find entry isn't for you. I have to take now doesn't mean you can't create videos or even have an in depth reporting show.

But that's not what TD punditry is about. So, I need you since your first bit of homework in one sentence, or less. identify how you would be described. If you're pitching yourself to a TV producer, someone who puts on show someone who books shows a Booker. What are your core principles? Are you a conservative or liberal?

Or libertarian? What are your views? It's okay, if it's not 100% mainstream as long as it's identifiable, and isn't some sort of pariah class, or something seen as completely? I mean, if you're a monarchist, you know, that might work in some European countries as a commentator, there's just not a lot of demand for monarchy. In the United States, you're not really relevant to the debate. But you can certainly be a libertarian.

You can be a socialist tool, it's harder to get airtime. I need you to write down exactly what your core set of principles are, but in just a sentence or two, so we know you know what you're dealing with.