A pundit is a person who offers to mass media their opinion or commentary on a particular subject area (most typically political analysis, the social sciences, technology or sport) on which they are knowledgeable (or can at least appear to be knowledgeable), or considered a scholar in said area. The term has been increasingly applied to popular media personalities.^[1] In certain cases, it may be used in a derogatory manner as well, as the political equivalent of ideologue.

The term originates from the Sanskrit term pandit (paṇḍitá पण्डित), meaning "knowledge owner" or "learned man".^[2] It refers to someone who is erudite in various subjects and who conducts religious ceremonies and offers counsel to the king and usually referred to a person from the Hindu Brahmin caste but may also refer to the Siddhas, Siddhars, Naths, Ascetics, Sadhus, or Yogis(rishi).

From at least the early 19th century, a Pundit of the Supreme Court in Colonial India was an officer of the judiciary who advised British judges on questions of Hindu law. In Anglo-Indian use, pundit also referred to a native of India who was trained and employed by the British to survey inaccessible regions beyond the British frontier.^[3]

Josef Joffe's book chapter The Decline of the Public Intellectual and the Rise of the Pundit describes a change in the role of public experts and relates to developments in the audience and the media itself.^[4] One of the problems related to expertise is the rapid amount of specialisation and knowledge, especially strong in the American universities. While in the 1960s, political science had just 5 subdisciplines, the number had increased to 104 by 2000. In the second half of the 20th century, foreigners like Hannah Arendt or Jürgen Habermas and others gained a certain position in the US as public intellectuals due to the (over)specialization of US academics.^[5]

A pundit now combines the roles of a public intellectual and has a certain expertise as a media practitioner. Pundits may be regarded as more shallow and superficial from a university perspective. The intellectual dimension might and should be challenged. But they play an increasing role in disseminating ideas and views in an accessible way to the public.^[6] From Joffe's view, Karl Marx in Europe and e.g. in the US, Mark Twain were early and relentless pundits ante festum.^[4] In addition, the growing role of think tanks and research institutions like the Brookings Institution, the American Enterprise Institute and the Manhattan Institute provided a place for those dealing with 'big issues' in public language.^[4]

The derogatory use as a talking head has been entered in Urban Dictionary. The judge in the David Westerfield trial in San Diego in 2002 referred to pundits as well as "talking heads": "The talking heads are doing nothing but speculating about what the jury may or may not be thinking".^[7]

Punditry has become a more popular vehicle in nightly newscasts on American cable news networks. A rise of partisanship among popular pundits began with Bill O'Reilly of Fox News Channel. His opinion-oriented format led him to ratings success and has led others, including Bill Maher, Keith Olbermann, and Nancy Grace to express their opinions on matters on their own programs.^[8]

At the same time, many people who appear as pundits are recognized for having serious academic and scholarly experience in the subject at hand. Examples are pundits Paul Krugman, who received a Nobel Prize in Economics, and Stephen Biddle, who received U.S. Army Superior Civilian Service Medals in 2003 and 2006.

In sports commentating, a "pundit" or color commentator may be partnered with a play-by-play announcer who will describe the action while asking the pundit for analysis. Alternatively, pundits may be asked for their opinions during breaks in the play.