I am ushered into a huge office.

Here at the Institute of Canadian Punditry, the Director says, we've helped many young pundits achieve their goal.

Can you help me, I whine anxiously.

Of course, the Director says.

I don't have much money. I fumble for my wallet.

Nonsense. We're funded by the government. Punditry is an important part of Canadian culture. Now, let's get down to business. What have you done so far?

Not much, I shrug.

Well, surely you've been on a panel discussion? No? Everyone who's anyone has been on a panel discussion. The Avi Lewis thing? Bynon? Evan Solomon? Studio 2? A call in on that CBC gardening show? What about Michael Coren (ah, such a credit to our stewardship). Not even Coren?

The director opens the file on my desk. According to our records, several excellent punditry positions have presented themselves to you in the recent past. In particular, you seem a perfect candidate to be chosen for a stint as an aging but still hip youth representative counted on to confirm middle class stereotypes of a dangerous underground culture that at once threatens and revives their stultifying lives. For instance, I see here that you were recently offered a chance to join a discussion of the Columbine high school incident. (Great for business, those teen slaughters!)

How did you -

The Director silences me with an impatient wave: We know everything. CSIS leaves their files on budding journalists in the back of unlocked cars while they watch hockey games.

But -

Let's look at what you did wrong here. You were contacted by the flunkey in charge of determining your suitability and willingness to take on the youth representative mantle and, in the process, assist in filling the yawning chasm of hours between commercials (without yourself receiving a dime, of course).

I nod enthusiastically. It would be my dream come true!

But...the Director prods.

But he wanted to know what my position was on pop culture influencing gun toting teens. And I said that the issue really had to be couched in a debate on a much higher level, that the question was not so much one of pop culture affecting teen behaviour, but of the pop confluence - including the media - limiting our capacity to represent our sense of who we are. So you see, it becomes extremely difficult for young people who live inside the mass media environment to express their identity without having that expression corrupted and consumed by a media complicit in creating a hostile -

No no no, shouted the Director. That won't do!

But -

Try this, the director says, calming. Try: Fascinating question! My position, of course, naturally depends on who you want me to politely but indignantly disagree with.

But -

And then this: By the way, could you please describe the target market of your esteemed show which I watch daily.

But -

And you never ever blame the media unless they ask you to blame the media. Then, you blame the media with everything you've got. Except for the show you're on, which you always make pains to point out is the rare exception to the rule. Understand?

I nod.

Good, let's try it.

Your panel, I say dumbly, sporting a glazed smile, which I enjoy nightly on my own time is always so original. I am going to represent the youth position which means that I will be the guy who argues that pop culture has no effect on teen behaviour. I will calmly cite several studies and make original arguments similar to the ones your audience has already heard in the op-ed pages and on CNN.

Perfect!

I beam then cringe as I see the Director frowning down at my file.

Just a few days after that you had another opportunity, now didn't you? A CBC radio show was inviting you to judge a contest to coin the pithy saying that will describe the next decade.

Yes, I say, flushing with excitement. Like Roaring Twenties, Swinging Thirties, Greedy Eighties.

So what went wrong?

I...well...I was very enthusiastic. I explained that it was a wonderful idea! Because generally these terms are coined by the media in a way that obliterates our sense of individual perspective, forcing us to conform to a quasi-historical pre-packaged norm that, most often, doesn't represent our own experiences. And the producer, she seemed very interested and discussed this problem with me at length. For instance, I told her, while I might christen the next decade as the turgid two thousand and tens the media, acting as a kind of borg-like sanitizing collective consciousness with no apparent leader, might go with the Terrific two thousand and tens. Which is to say that there is always an apparent gap between our perception of who we are, and the media's capacity to accurately represent our experiences while still serving the needs of a profit hungry corporate sector that depends on projecting a homogenized optimism to foster a positive marketing environment.

You're the worst prospective pundit ever to enter my office. No one cares about your high minded theories. The pundit's job is to say with all the conviction you can muster exactly what tv producers think people want to hear. Remember the pundit moto: Indignity, Sincerity, Conformity! Pundits function to shore up the system of instant experts and pseudo participation the entire media universe depends on! The system works! If they want man-on-the-street jargon, they'll do an internet instant poll. Sure you have big ideas. Everyone has big ideas. That's not what the media's for.

But then, I begged, where do I try out my ideas?

Ideas, snorted the Director. You're a hopeless case, son. Punditry isn't about ideas!

But I thought -

Ideas change! Ideas lose their lustre! A good pundit never goes out of fashion!

The Director levelled a remote control in my direction. My chair tilted, sliding me through a tunnel and into a sound proofed subterranean chamber adorned with tv and couch. Pamela Wallin, resplendent and ubiquitous in her new time slot(s), chatted with a guest. I screamed and nobody noticed.