This analysis explores the credibility of commentators by analysing the argumentation they present in support of their standpoints, views and opinions. The pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation and its concepts of fallacy and strategic manoeuvring are used to identify argumentation strategies and evaluate their quality in contributing to public debate. Credibility is explored through the concept of Aristotle´s ethos, where the commentary is understood as a place for gathering. Giving ethos this primordial meaning allows focus on the commentary as a contribution to public life, making it a necessity that commentators express arguments and ideas. The normative analysis reveals that commentators – albeit exceptions do exist – mainly argue in ways that violate the ten rules placed by the pragma-dialectic theory as the ideal in discussions. Pundits often do little to provide readers with the ability to try their assertions and check the probability of their claims. Instead, ambiguous phrases, assertive language and faultily applied argumentation schemes hide explanations, reasoning and analysis. The definition of ethos as dwelling causes the occurrence of fallacies and lack of sound argumentation to influence the credibility of pundits negatively.