How would you interpret this sentence?
Politics here now resemble a pillow fight. Lacking the unifying slogan (Win the War), our opposing parties sling absurd pronouncements back and forth, which everyone pretends carry real weight. How the feathers fly. The newsmen leap on anything, though it’s all on the order of, “Four out of five shoppers know this is the better dill pickle,” assertions that can’t be proven but sway opinion. “Dance for the crowd” is the new order, with newsmen leading the politicians like bears on the leash. Real convictions would be a hindrance. The radio is at the root of the evil, their rule is: No silence, ever. When anything happens, the commentator has to speak without a moment’s pause for gathering wisdom. Falsehood and inanity are preferable to silence. You can’t imagine the effect of this. The talkers are rising above the thinkers.

How would you interpret this sentence: Real convictions would be a hindrance?
Thanks!How would you interpret these two sentences?
1. …the commentator has to speak without a moment’s pause for gathering wisdom.
How would you interpret ‘gathering wisdom’ here?
2. The talkers are rising above the thinkers.
Thanks!

Question

How would you interpret this sentence?
Politics here now resemble a pillow fight. Lacking the unifying slogan (Win the War), our opposing parties sling absurd pronouncements back and forth, which everyone pretends carry real weight. How the feathers fly. The newsmen leap on anything, though it’s all on the order of, “Four out of five shoppers know this is the better dill pickle,” assertions that can’t be proven but sway opinion. “Dance for the crowd” is the new order, with newsmen leading the politicians like bears on the leash. Real convictions would be a hindrance. The radio is at the root of the evil, their rule is: No silence, ever. When anything happens, the commentator has to speak without a moment’s pause for gathering wisdom. Falsehood and inanity are preferable to silence. You can’t imagine the effect of this. The talkers are rising above the thinkers.

How would you interpret this sentence: Real convictions would be a hindrance?
Thanks!How would you interpret these two sentences?
1. …the commentator has to speak without a moment’s pause for gathering wisdom.
How would you interpret ‘gathering wisdom’ here?
2. The talkers are rising above the thinkers.
Thanks!

Answer

I addressed the additional questions in your other post.
Real convictions would require that a politician be consistent in his speech and would make it difficult to speak without forethought. Media outlets often prefer a quick, catchy sound-bite, not in-depth analysis.

Answer

I interpret the first of your questions in terms of the previous sentence: '"Dance for the crowd" is the new order, with newsmen leading the politicians like bears on the leash'. The writer thinks that newsmen, particularly radio commentators, just say whatever pleases the audience, and use politicians for their entertainment value. If a politician had 'real convictions' then they would not be willing to acquiesce to such demands.

'without a moment's pause for gathering wisdom' sounds archaic to my ear. People would normally say, 'speak without thinking' or 'without stopping to think'. In other words, to say whatever comes first into their head, even if that is superficial and not well thought out.

'The talkers are rising above the thinkers', people just say anything that comes into their heads, and thus wisdom, and profound thought, is lost. The writer is railing against the inanity of the popular media.