As I watched the Republican and Democratic conventions, I noticed something was missing. The analysis. I heard opinion after opinion about what people “felt” about a speaker, and depending on what channel I was watching, that could have even been subjective (I’m looking at you Fox News). On the whole though, every network lacked an appropriate amount of analysis. I am not someone who knows the issues inside and out, so I wanted to hear the meaning behind all these words that these politicians were saying, but I was disappointed when I did not get that on a consistent basis. Instead, I heard subjective feelings of gushing or dismay over the speeches these politicians gave.

So, when I came across this story I was immediately hooked. Thankfully, someone realized this egregious abuse of power by these pundits on television and wrote about it. Then, as I read, I found something else very interesting. David Bauder, writer for The Miami Herald, put some of the blame on Twitter and I’ll tell you what: I couldn’t agree more. It is tough to multi-task and with all this emphasis on social media and sending out tweets during the speeches, less time is being devoted to analyzing the words being said by these powerful politicians and more time is being devoted to sending out interesting tweets. This is a problem. I love Twitter as much as the next person, but if it is negatively affected the coverage of important events, such as who our next president might be, than maybe a change is in need.

I wish I had the answer to this problem, but with the emergence and impact of Twitter, not tweeting during significant events is out of the equation. So, I guess the real question in this rapidly changing world is: How fast can we learn to multi-task?