Position Paper #1: Political Pundits

 

Political Pundits

Political pundits have become an important part of how people receive political information. Instead of only relying on traditional newspapers or television news, audiences can now follow political commentators through podcasts, YouTube, social media, and streaming programs. These personalities often do more than report what has already happened. They analyze current events and make predictions about what might happen next. Megyn Kelly is one example of a political media personality who frequently discusses elections, candidates, polling, and political strategy. Before and during the 2024 presidential election, Kelly made several predictions about the election and the people involved in it. Looking back at those predictions provides an opportunity to consider an important question about political media: Are political pundits making predictions based on actual reporting and evidence, or are some predictions simply "hot takes" that sound confident but are difficult to support? Examining Kelly's commentary shows that predictive journalism can contain useful analysis, but audiences also need to understand the difference between a prediction, an opinion, and a verified fact.

One example of Kelly's predictive commentary came in January 2024 when she appeared on The Rubin Report to discuss her expectations for the upcoming presidential election. The episode was specifically promoted as a discussion of "2024 Predictions," and Kelly discussed who she thought would win the presidential election as well as possible choices for Donald Trump's running mate. At this point, the election was still many months away, and the Republican primary was still ongoing. There was no way to to know exactly what would happen because candidates, campaigns, voters, and political circumstances could all change. Kelly was therefore making a forecast rather than reporting an established fact. A traditional news report might tell an audience what a candidate said or what a poll found. A political commentator can take that information and interpret it to make a prediction about what could happen in the future.

A more specific example occurred when Kelly discussed potential candidates for Trump's vice-presidential running mate. Before the Republican National Convention, Kelly suggested that Alabama Senator Katie Britt could be a "dark horse" potentially for the position. Britt had received national attention after delivering the Republican response to President Joe Biden's State of the Union address. Kelly was considering Britt's political profile and recent national exposure when discussing the possibility that Trump could choose her. However, Trump ultimately selected Senator J.D. Vance of Ohio. Kelly identified a possible outcome, explained why she thought it was possible, and the actual outcome was different.

The Katie Britt example also raises that question of whether every incorrect prediction should be considered a bad example of journalism. Political predictions are inherently uncertain because they deal with events that have not happened yet. A pundit can have reasonable evidence and still make an incorrect prediction. In Britt's case, Kelly was not reporting that Britt had been selected. She was simply discussing a possibility. That difference matters because the standard for evaluating a forecast should be different from the standard for evaluating a factual news report. If a journalist reports that a candidate has officially been selected when that is not true, that is a factual error. If a commentator says someone could be selected and that person is not ultimately chosen, the prediction was unsuccessful, but it does not necessarily mean there was no basis for making it. Audiences should pay attention to how much certainty a pundit communicates when making a prediction.

Kelly's coverage of the 2024 presidential election provides another example of the relationship between prediction and evidence. Throughout the campaign, political commentators had access to polling data, historical voting patterns, campaign events, voter surveys, and information about candidates. Kelly discussed polling and election forecasts on her program and interviewed people who specialized in election analysis. These discussions show that predictive political journalism does not always come "out of thin air." Political pundits can use real information to develop expectations about what might happen. However, using evidence does not guarantee that the conclusion will be correct.

The 2024 election also demonstrates why audiences should be careful when interpreting polling and forecasts. Before Election Day, many polls showed a close race between Trump and Harris. Polling averages were snapshots of public opinion rather than guarantees of the final result. This distinction is important because a poll measures what voters say at a particular time, while a forecast attempts to estimate what will happen in the election. Those are not exactly the same thing. After the election, Kelly discussed the difference between the polling environment and the actual show. On November 6th, her program described Trump's victory as larger than expected based on the polling. Kelly criticized polling and argued that many polls had failed to communicate the size of Trump's eventual victory. The official Electoral College results show that Trump received 312 electoral votes compared with Harris's 226. Looking back at the election allows audiences to compare what commentators and polls suggested beforehand with what actually happened.

This is where the idea of a "hot take" becomes important. Political media rewards strong and confident opinions because they are often more interesting to audiences than cautious statements. Saying that a candidate "could have a chance" is less dramatic than saying the candidate "will win." Likewise, saying someone "could be on a VP shortlist" is less attention-grabbing than confidently predicting that person will be chosen. Political commentators therefore have an incentive to make their opinions interesting and memorable. However, a confident tone does not necessarily mean that a prediction is supported by better evidence. Going back after an election and comparing what pundits actually said with what happened can show which predictions were supported by evidence and which were more speculative.

At the same time, predictive journalism can provide useful information when it explains the reasoning behind a prediction. A prediction can encourage audiences to consider different possibilities and pay attention to factors that may influence an election. For example, a pundit discussing a possible vice-presidential candidate might bring attention to a candidate's background, political experience, public image, or the relationship with the presidential nominee. Even if the prediction is incorrect, the discussion can still provide context about how political decisions are made. Similarly, election forecasts can encourage audiences to think about polling, voter turnout, swing states, and other factors that could predict the outcome. The value is not necessarily in having a perfect prediction, but in explaining the evidence and uncertainty surrounding an event.

Megyn Kelly's political commentary provides a useful case study because her predictions include both specific possibilities and broader election analysis. Her speculation about Katie Britt did not match the eventual vice-presidential selection, since Trump chose J.D. Vance. Her coverage of the 2024 presidential election also demonstrates how political commentary interacts with polling and forecasting. These examples do not automatically prove that Kelly's analysis was good or bad. Instead, they show why political punditry should be evaluated by looking at what was actually said, what evidence was available at the time, and what ultimately happened.

Overall, predictive journalism can teach audiences something of substance, but it depends on how the prediction is presented and understood. Political pundits can use real information to make educated forecasts, but political events are unpredictable and even evidence-based predictions can be wrong. Audiences should view predictions as analysis rather than guarantees. Looking back at Megyn Kelly's commentary shows why it is important to distinguish reporting from opinion and evidence from speculation. The most useful predictive journalism does not simply tell audiences what will happen; it explains why an outcome is possible and acknowledges uncertainty. That gives readers and viewers information they can evaluate for themselves.