Position Paper I: Political Pundits

 It is hard for me to admit, as an aspiring journalist, but the field of journalism is full of moral/ethical gray areas. On one hand, we stress to report the facts, but on the flip side, what is quality writing or a good story without putting a little bit of yourself in the piece? We are told that we need to have our own unique voice, but how can we do this if we only spout out cold hard facts like a computer? In order to be a journalist, there is a fine line to walk in order to find this balance. 

So that brings up the question: what is truth? Journalists are only to report the truth (lest we be numbered among the tabloid writers), but are predictions truth? Or is truth relative, and if so, how do we then determine the ethics of what we write? And here arrives on the scene another gray area journalists step into. According to author and financial journalist, Michael Lewis, "knowledge is prediction" (Source). If we go by that logic, then so long as we have the knowledge on the subject, then we can make the predictions. As rational as that sounds on paper, many would argue that that fact has proven to be incorrect on several occasions. 

Let's take a look at the biggest political prediction blunder of the century thus far: the 2016 elections. This has to be a prime example of political predictions in journalism missing the mark.... big time. Everyone was sure that Hillary would beat Trump in the 2016 presidential elections. So sure that even Washington Post columnist, Dana Milbank swore that if Trump won then he'd eat his own printed column of predictions...  as it turned out, he had to eat his column.  

In this case, the predictions even went beyond who would win the election. But there were even predictions that the poll turnouts themselves would be at an all time high because people were so eager to vote against Trump. That turned out to be in incorrect prediction as well. The data that journalist were spouting out was not pulled out of thin air, and yet, their predictions were not true. It seemed no matter how many polls were taken or how much data was gathered, the predictions were still flat out wrong. While some argue that they were in fact correct because Hillary did win the popular vote, still didn't change the fact that Trump is the current president. 

"But forecasting  is complicated. The chance that a prediction can go awry is higher than people realize. Bad data, poor modelling, and insufficient communication are all real threats to even seasoned journalist." (Source). 

It is because of this that lines are drawn and hard opinions are formed. While predictive journalism is now considered mainstream media, many journalist are against the notion. "Journalists - reporters and opinionators alike - just aren't very good at this. (predictive journalism). Yet they go on doing it, in part because there's so little accountability in political journalism." (Source). While it is safe for journalist to predict things such "Who will win the Oscars this year" or "Who will win the upcoming Super Bowl," is it really ethical for journalists to predict more crucial matters such as the politics? After all, it is the world of media where the population gets their information, so is it ethical to be wrong on major historical events such as the 2016 elections?  

"There's no penalty for being wrong. You can blithely go on making another evidence-free prediction with no consequences," Columbia University journalism professor William Grueskin said. (Source). 

This being the case, than ethics can no longer be ignored. It is also why there are many journalists trying to get the word out for people to be aware of this fact. G.Elliot Morris, a data journalist for The Economist, uses his Twitter account as a diary to bring awareness to this. His emphasis is in political predictions. While he does make predictions as a journalist, he is clear that the predictions he makes are based on data and they are not concrete. This is the ideal balance of political predictions; he is careful to collect data, but still is humble enough to know that it is up for change. It creates a standard of political pundits that alleviates much misinformation.   

While you could argue that by stating it is a prediction then you are making the reader fully aware that what you are saying is not gospel, but that still does not get you out of the gray. Because people are coming to media outlets to gain information, to be informed. To me, this hold journalists to a higher standard, and this creates a sense of accountability or it should! We need to be more cautious in making prediction especially in things as critical as politics. While you may gather all the data to make educated guesses, it is best to never speak in definite. There are no guarantees in the world of predictions especially in politics!  

The truth is not all political pundits are this careful with spreading information, and not all the predictions being showed nationwide are even from so call "accredited" people.  Currently among social media users, political pundits are rising up and giving their opinions to millions of followers. These are teenagers or young adults that are social media influencers some even too young to vote themselves. It is a know fact that most of the young adult and adolescent population are now getting their news from social media, so it makes sense that pundits would begin to emerge on these platforms. On Tik Tok, hype houses are being created. Both parties are represented, and they are "virtual houses" for people affiliated with certain political parties to follow to get facts and information about politics and the upcoming election.  

While this is cool, this also raises some issues. First of all, Tik Tok videos are only 15-60 seconds, so how can one give enough details to make an informed decision. Also, just like with the journalists and their predictions, where is the accountability? Do these hype houses have to give fact checked information or are there any repercussions if they do not? And one could argue that it would not matter if there was. Because it has been proven time and time again with false news that once something is published, even if it is retracted, many people still believe it. It would be the same instance here. Once someone says and posts it, there is no way to truly ever "take it back." 

 One could argue they have every right to spread their opinion and state their predictions, and they do. However, they know as well as many people who have gained a mass following on a social media platform, that they have a huge influence. Many of their followers trust them and therefore these self proclaimed pundits should be more careful with the predictions and "information" they spread. Often, they are guilty of speaking too freely, and therefore run into the issue of misinformation. While social media has created a unique situation where people can now voice ideas and share things, there is also no accountability for what is stated as gospel truth. This creates a gray area where people can very easily be misled.