I Think, Therefore I ... Should Turn Off News Reporting on Politics

During a recent debate featuring candidates for the Republican presidential nomination, Newt Gingrich expressed the view that a compassionate, humane approach is called for in dealing with undocumented immigrants who have been in the United States for many years.

Gingrich pointed out that it makes no sense for members of a party so focused on the family to want to deport immigrants who have built lives and families here, thereby breaking up those families.

In observing that doing so is neither humane nor compassionate, Gingrich sounded much more like a centrist or moderate than most people think he is. Of course a review of his statements and actions when he was Speaker of the House during the 1990s reveals that he was definitely capable of taking a centrist approach, as evidenced by the various things that were achieved through the joint efforts of the president and the speaker.

The next day this aspect of the debate was reported by CNN. Call me old fashioned, but I think news reporting is a matter of telling people what happened. Of course a bit of context is helpful, and it is entirely reasonable to include something about reactions to what someone has said.

Suppose one of the other candidates had responded by saying, "Newt! That's amnesty! Don't you remember what happened the last time we did that? The floodgates opened. We cannot do that again."

That would have been something to report, but that didn't happen. And it's too bad, because it would really have been interesting to see how Gingrich, who loves history and champions the importance of studying history to avoid repeating mistakes, would have handled it. No, in fact, none of the other candidates replied in a memorable or effective way.

So, absent anything good in the way of a response to report from the debate itself, CNN turned the matter over to its pundits. And I'd be OK with that, because I am a pundit myself - I have a certificate suitable for framing from the online University of Punditry - and I am usually interested in hearing what other pundits think of the events of the day.

That, however, is not what the pundits did. No, instead, they launched into speculation about how what Gingrich said would be received by voters - particularly conservative Republicans in Iowa. All day - OK, maybe not literally, but it sure seemed so - the pundits droned on about how conservative Republicans in Iowa (they may have mentioned New Hampshire or South Carolina, but Iowa was the focus) would not like what Gingrich had to say.

This statement, the pundits said, was sure to go over poorly with Iowa's conservative Republicans, would likely affect Newt's standing in Iowa polls, and might very well torpedo his chances of a big win in the upcoming Iowa caucuses.

This goes far beyond the proper role of a pundit. The reporter tells us what happened. The pundit provides context and gives us some perspective on the news. It is not the pundit's proper role to tell us what to think about the news.

In other words: Now hear this, all you pundits. You may tell me what you think. Do not tell me what I should think. Do not tell the conservative Republican voters of Iowa what they are expected to think or how they are expected to react.

Surely many of you have noticed that the news networks have gone far beyond reporting and analysis. This is not good journalism. So here is my recommendation. Watch the debates, and then turn the television off. Do your own thinking. If you want to know what to think, don't ask me. I will tell you what I think, but don't adopt my thoughts as your own, if you want to stay out of trouble.