Is it really the media’s job to give advice?* When I think back on all the things I have said about politics, all the things I thought so and so should do, I realize how poorly informed I am to make these assessments. Is the press really that much more informed. You turn on the news and some pundit will hold up a chart and say McCain must do this or Obama must do that. Who doesn’t have advice for these guys?

The more important question is who is actually qualified to give this advice? Pretend you are Obama or McCain. You need advice, whom do you turn to? I bet the answer isn’t one of those people on TV and I bet it isn’t even a journalist from the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, The Weekly Standard or what ever? I realize that I personally would be looking to a political scientist or a sociologist or a psychologist. Basically, I would want someone with actual charts, actual figures, actual correlation coefficients, and actual degrees.

For example, the data shows that campaigns only have a minimal effect on voters. Elections are decided on the margin; so I guess it’s still worth spending the near billion dollars net the two campaigns will spend. More important than campaigns to voting are changes in party affiliation, the state of the economy, and incumbent status. Furthermore, statistics show that the things that actually predict election results are voter enthusiasm and the so-called “right track wrong track” poll, not these silly national polls that get all the reporting (although if you must, the Gallup Tracking Poll is the best followed by SurveyUSA).

So I am really bored by this substanceless, numberless, and meaningless opining that I read every day. Maybe the reports should…you know….report! If Obama lays out his economic plan, publish it as a bullet point explanation. If McCain explains what he will do in Iraq, give it to me. But saying Obama needs to show he is stronger or McCain needs to act younger - Not helpful.

These reporters have minimal basis for what they are saying. RealClearPolitics blogger Jay Cost put it best when he said that the media reports in a bubble. They are political junkies, reporting for other political junkies. Gaffes only matter to political junkies, unless the gaffe really shows poor policy (McCain saying the economy is strong when Lehman Brothers fell is not a gaffe but a reflection of his inability to understand the economy). Cost points out that the race is currently tied because most of America hasn’t plugged into the race yet. We still have two months left of this, and people don’t start watching until the debates. If you are outside of the bubble, these opinions and advice and gaffes and counter-gaffes are all static.

I contend that actual reporting and actual explanations of the policy would show through and beyond the static, and prove helpful to those who haven’t tuned in.

*To avoid calls of plagiarism this article was inspired by Christopher Beam’s Slate article on the same topic but from the standpoint of how the advice is dumb, where I am made that reporters are wasting their time.